We welcome comments in the PEDro blog. All comments will be moderated. We only accept comments which are respectful, professional and based on evidence. If a post relates to a research paper, please read the full paper before submitting your comment.
Support for PEDro comes from the Association des Béninoise des Kinésithérapeutes-Rééducateurs
We thank the Association des Béninoise des Kinésithérapeutes-Rééducateurs for partnering with PEDro in 2017.
Systematic review found that combining resistance training with aerobic training is more effective than aerobic training alone for physical function in patients with coronary heart disease
This review investigated the effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation consisting of resistance training on outcomes of physical function. Studies including resistance training as a single intervention, or in combination with aerobic training, were included. These were compared to aerobic training alone for cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2 peak and peak work capacity) and muscular strength. Meta-analyses were conducted and the quality of the evidence was classified from very low to high using the GRADE approach. There was moderate quality evidence for improvements in peak oxygen uptake (weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.61 mL/kg/min, 95% confidence internal (CI) 0.20 to 1.10), peak work capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.38, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.64) and muscular strength (SMD 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.87) favouring combined training (resistance training in combination with aerobic training). There was no evidence of a difference in effect when comparing resistance training alone to aerobic training, with low quality evidence. Combining resistance training with aerobic training in cardiac rehabilitation is more effective than aerobic training alone for improving physical function.
Xanthos PD et al. Implementing resistance training in the rehabilitation of coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 2017;230:493-508.
PEDro update (1 May 2017)
PEDro contains 36,506 records. In the 1 May 2017 update you will find:
- 28,891 reports of randomised controlled trials (28,177 of these trials have confirmed ratings of methodological quality using the PEDro scale)
- 6,998 reports of systematic reviews, and
- 617 reports of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines
#PhysicalTherapy #physioRead More
PEDro update (May 2017)
PEDro updated on 1 May 2017. For latest guidelines, reviews and trials in physiotherapy visit Evidence in your inbox
#PhysicalTherapy #physioRead More
Next PEDro update (May 2017)
Next PEDro update is on Monday 1 May 2017.
How to optimise PEDro searching video now available in Italian
We are pleased to announce that the “how to optimise PEDro searching” video is now available in Italian.
This video explains some of the common errors made by PEDro users which make searching less effective. These include using Boolean operators, using brackets to combine terms, and using non-English characters in text fields. Error messages are now displayed when users make these errors.
The video is also available in English, Portuguese, French, German, Japanese, and Tamil.
PEDro would like to thank Silvia Terzi who translated and recorded the Italian version of the how to optimise PEDro searching. Silvia is from the AUSL Città di Bologna, Italy.
Support for PEDro comes from the Società Italiana Fisioterapia
We thank the Società Italiana Fisioterapia for partnering with PEDro in 2017.
PEDro scale is valid and reliable in pharmaceutical trials
The validity (convergent and construct) and inter-rater reliability of the PEDro scale has been evaluated for pharmaceutical trials. 53 randomised placebo controlled trials evaluating any pain medication for chronic spinal pain or osteoarthritis were assessed by two raters. Convergent validity was evaluated by correlating the total PEDro score with the summary score of the Cochrane Back and Neck Group risk of bias tool. Construct validity was tested using a linear regression analysis to determine the degree to which the total PEDro score was associated with treatment effect sizes, journal impact factor and the summary score for the Cochrane Back and Neck Group risk of bias tool. The correlation between the total PEDro score and summary score for the Cochrane Back and Neck Group risk of bias tool was 0.83 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.88), indicating strong convergence. The total PEDro score was inversely associated with effect sizes, significantly associated with the summary score for the Cochrane Back and Neck Group risk of bias tool, and not associated with the journal impact factor. The inter-rater reliability for each item of the PEDro scale and Cochrane Back and Neck Group risk of bias tool was at least substantial for most items (Prevalence and Bias Adjusted Kappa > 0.60). The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient was 0.80 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.88) for the total PEDro score and 0.81 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.88) for the Cochrane Back and Neck Group risk of bias tool summary score. There was evidence for the convergent and construct validity for the PEDro scale. Both the PEDro scale and Cochrane Back and Neck Group risk of bias tool have acceptably high inter-rater reliability.
Yamato et al. The PEDro scale had acceptably high convergent validity, construct validity and inter-rater reliability in evaluating methodological quality of pharmaceutical trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2017 Mar 10;Epub ahead of print
PEDro systematic review update in the BJSM
A new PEDro systematic review update has been published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine:Read More
PEDro indexes 36,000+ reports
We are pleased to announce that PEDro has just achieved a new milestone for the amount of evidence. There are now 36,000+ reports of trials, reviews and guidelines indexed on PEDro.