Trials and tribulations of transparency related to inconsistencies between plan and conduct in peer-reviewed physiotherapy publications: A methodology review

RationaleThe physiotherapy profession strives to be a leader in providing quality care and strongly recognizes the value of research to guide clinical practice. Adherence to guidelines for research reporting and conduct is a significant step towards high-quality, transparent and reproducible research. Aim/ObjectiveAssess integrity between planned and conducted methodology in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) published in physiotherapy journals. MethodsEighteen journals were manually searched for RCTs and SRs published from 1 July 2021 through 31 December 2021. Studies were included if the journal or specific study was indexed in PubMed and published/translated in English. Descriptive statistics determined congruence between preregistration data and publication. ResultsForty RCTs and 68 SRs were assessed. Forty-three SRs included meta-analysis (MA). Of the 34 registered RCTs, 7 (20.6%) had no discrepancy between the registration and publication. Two trials (5.9%) addressed all discrepancies, 4 (11.8%) addressed some and 21 (61.8%) did not address any discrepancies. Of the 36 registered MAs, 33 (91.7%) had discrepancies between the registration and publication. Two (5.6%) addressed all discrepancies and three (8.3%) had no discrepancies. Eight SRs without MA published information not matching their registration, and none provided justification for the discrepancies. ConclusionMost RCTs/SRs were registered; the majority had discrepancies between preregistration and publication, potentially influencing the outcomes and interpretations of findings. Journals should require preregistration and compare the submission with the registration information when assessing publication suitability. Readers should be aware of these inconsistencies and their implications when interpreting and translating results into practice.