Secondary Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Share this article on:

Applying Evidence Standards to Rehabilitation Research

Johnston, Mark V. PhD; Sherer, Mark PhD; Whyte, John MD, PhD

American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation: April 2006 - Volume 85 - Issue 4 - p 292-309
doi: 10.1097/01.phm.0000202079.58567.3b
Overview: Model Systems

Johnston M, Sherer M, Whyte J: Applying evidence standards to rehabilitation research. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2006;85:292–309.

Objective: To describe evidence grading methods employed in the systematic reviews in this special series of articles. To provide an overview of results of these reviews to critique the quality of rehabilitation research. To identify issues in the application of evidence grading methods to rehabilitation.

Design: Conceptual review of evidence-based practice and evidence grading methods. English-language research studies on rehabilitation of persons with spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, and burn for the 5-yr period of 1999–2004 were reviewed using methods of the American Academy of Neurology supplemented by Cochrane criteria and summarized.

Results: Rehabilitation has a shortage of high-level studies. The number of level 1 treatment studies was quite limited (five in spinal cord injury, 15 in traumatic brain injury, 12 in burn rehabilitation), as was the number of level 2 studies (26, 4, and 2, respectively). Despite the large number of correlational studies published, the number of high-level (1 or 2) diagnostic and prognostic studies was surprisingly limited (34, 11, and 5, respectively). The rate of production of high-level studies is rapidly increasing. Problems were encountered in applying standard evidence criteria to complex issues encountered in some studies, suggesting limitations and issues in evidence grading methodology.

Conclusions: Rehabilitation needs more high-level studies. Some improvements in research methodology are relatively affordable (e.g., improved blinding), whereas others are expensive (e.g., large randomized controlled trials). Lower-level investigations reporting promising results need to be followed by more definitive, higher-level trials.

From Outcomes Research, Kessler Medical Rehabilitation Research and Education Corporation, West Orange, New Jersey (MVJ); Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey/New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey (MVJ); Neuropsychology, Methodist Rehabilitation Center, Jackson, Mississippi (MS); Neurology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi (MS); Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute, Albert Einstein Healthcare Network, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (JW); and the Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Jefferson Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (JW).

All correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Mark V. Johnston, PhD, KMRREC, Research (East), 1199 Pleasant Valley Way, West Orange, NJ 07079.

Supported, in part, by the Henry H. Kessler Foundation, West Orange, New Jersey.

© 2006 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.