Cochrane rehabilitation: 2020 Annual report

during its fourth year of existence, cochrane rehabilitation went on to promote evidence-informed health decision-making in rehabilitation. in 2020, the outbreak of the coVid-19 pandemic has made it necessary to alter priorities. in these challenging times, cochrane rehabilitation has firstly changed its internal organisation and established a new relevant project in line with pandemic needs: the REH-COVER (Rehabilitation – coVid-19 evidence-based response) action. the aim was to focus on the timely collection, review and dissemination of summarised and synthesised evidence relating to COVID-19 and rehabilitation. Cochrane Rehabilitation REH-COVER action has included in 2020 five main initiatives: 1) rapid living systematic reviews on rehabilitation and coVid-19; 2) interactive living evidence map on rehabilitation and coVid-19; 3) definition of the research topics on “rehabilitation and COVID-19” in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) rehabilitation programme; 4) Cochrane Library special collection on Coronavirus (COVID-19) rehabilitation; and 5) collaboration with COVID-END for the topics “rehabilitation” and “disability.” Furthermore, we are still carrying on five different special projects: Be4rehab; RCTRACK; definition of rehabilitation for research purposes; ebook project; and a prioritization exercise for Cochrane Reviews production. The Review Working Area continued to identify and “tag” the rehabilitation-relevant reviews published in the cochrane library; the publication Working area went on to publish Cochrane Corners, working more closely with the Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) and Cochrane Networks, particularly with Cochrane Musculoskeletal, oral, skin and sensory Network; the Education Working area, the most damaged in 2020, tried to continue performing educational activities such as workshops in different online meetings; the Methodology Working area organized the third and fourth cochrane Rehabilitation Methodological (CRM) meetings respectively in Milan and Orlando; the Communication Working Area spread rehabilitation evidences through different channels and translated the contents in different languages

Mapping the primary outcomes reported in Cochrane systematic reviews regarding stroke with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health domains: current trend and future recommendations

BACKGROUND: The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) serves as a framework for defining and categorizing health and functioning. ICF could be used to classify research outcomes in a systematic manner. AIM: The aim of this study was to classify the primary outcomes used in Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs) into the ICF domains of functioning; to describe the differences in primary outcomes in reviews related to rehabilitation intervention and non-rehabilitation intervention; and to describe the trend of outcome selections according year of publication. DESIGN: Methodological paper. POPULATION: Adult stroke population. METHODS: We analyzed the primary outcomes used in the CSRs published by the Cochrane Stroke Review Group up to December 2017. The primary outcomes were extracted and classified into the ICF domains of functioning (body functions, body structures and activity and participation). RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-four papers with 216 primary outcomes were included in this analysis. Less than half (102/216, 47.2%) of the outcomes could be classified into the ICF domains of functioning. For the outcomes that could be classified into the ICF domains, the majority (72/102, 70.5%) were in the activity and participation domain, followed by body functions (26/102, 25.5%) and body structures (4/102, 4.0%). Of the outcomes that could not be classified into the ICF domains (N.=114), death (81/114, 71.1%) and recurrent stroke (21/114,18.4%) formed the majority of the outcome. There were 75 CSRs on rehabilitation related interventions; the majority of the outcomes (75/97, 77.3%) used in rehabilitation related CSRs could be classified into the ICF framework with more than half (49/75, 65.3%) in the activity and participation domain. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the primary outcomes selected by the Cochrane Stroke Review Group in their CSRs could not be classified into the ICF domains of functioning. Death and recurrence of vascular events remains the major outcome of interest. In rehabilitation related interventions, activity and participation domain is the functioning domain most commonly used. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: The systematic use of patients-centered ICF-based outcomes in CSRs could help the application of evidence in clinical decision making

Clinical replicability of rehabilitation interventions in randomized controlled trials reported in main journals is inadequate

Objective: The objective of this study was to study if randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in rehabilitation (a field where complex interventions prevail) published in main journals include all the details needed to replicate the intervention in clinical practice (clinical replicability). Study Design and Setting: Forty-seven rehabilitation clinicians of 5 professions from 7 teams (Belgium, Italy, Malaysia, Pakistan, Poland, Puerto Rico, the USA) reviewed 76 RCTs published by main rehabilitation journals exploring 14 domains chosen through consensus and piloting. Results: The response rate was 99%. Inter-rater agreement was moderate/good. All clinicians considered unanimously 12 (16%) RCTs clinically replicable and none not replicable. At least one \u201cabsent\u201d information was found by all participants in 60 RCTs (79%), and by a minimum of 85% in the remaining 16 (21%). Information considered to be less well described (8\u201319% \u201cperfect\u201d information) included two providers (skills, experience) and two delivery (cautions, relationships) items. The best described (50\u201379% \u201cperfect\u201d) were the classic methodological items included in CONSORT (descending order: participants, materials, procedures, setting, and intervention). Conclusion: Clinical replicability must be considered in RCTs reporting, particularly for complex interventions. Classical methodological checklists such as CONSORT are not enough, and also Template for Intervention Description and Clinical replication do not cover all the requirements. This study supports the need for field-specific checklists