Methodological Quality of Physical Therapy-Related Trials Published in Open Access and Subscription Journal: A Cross-sectional Meta-Epidemiological Study.

Abstract

We aimed to compare the methodological quality of physical therapy-related trials published in open access with that of trials published in subscription-based journals, adjusting for subdiscipline, intervention type, endorsement of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, impact factor, and publication language. In this meta-epidemiological study, we searched the Physiotherapy Evidence Database on May 8, 2021, to include any physical therapy-related trials published from January 1, 2020. We extracted variables such as Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials endorsement, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database score, and publication type. We compared the Physiotherapy Evidence Database score between the publication types using a multivariable generalized estimating equation by adjusting for covariates. A total of 2743 trials were included, with a mean total Physiotherapy Evidence Database score (standard deviation) of 5.8 (±1.5). Trials from open access journals had a lower total Physiotherapy Evidence Database score than those from subscription-based journals (5.5 ± 1.5 vs. 5.9 ± 1.5, mean difference = -0.4; 95% confidence interval = 0.3-0.5). Generalized estimating equation revealed that open access publication was significantly associated with the total Physiotherapy Evidence Database score (mean difference = -0.42; P < 0.001). In the recent physical therapy-related trials, open access publications demonstrated lower methodological quality than subscription-based publications, although with a small difference.