BackgroundDespite the use of citation rate as a measure of quality of research is strongly criticized and debated, it remain a widely used method to evaluate performances of researchers, articles and journals. The aim of this study was to test which factors are associated with citation rate of Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) published on the physiotherapy field.MethodsAll RCTs abstracted in the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), indexed in Scopus database and published in 2008 were included. PEDro score, language of publication, indexing in PubMed database, type of access to articles, subdiscipline, the number of authors, the country where the study was performed, the type of institution where the study was conducted and the number of centres involved in the study (multicentric vs single-centre). and the 2013 5-year impact factor of the publishing journals were considered as independent variables. Citation rate until December 2013 was extracted from Scopus database and used as dependent variable.ResultsSix hundred and nineteen RCTs, published in 283 journals, were included and analysed. The 5-year impact factor was the strongest variable associated with the citation rate and explained approximately 50 % of the variance, and the number of authors explained an additional small part (about 1 %) of variability. The other variables were excluded from the model.ConclusionsThe study highlights that 5-year Impact Factor, not accessibility (language of publication, indexing in PubMed database or the type of access to articles) or reported quality (PEDro score), is a strong predictor of the number of citations for RCTs in the physiotherapy field. Our findings support the increasingly widespread idea that citation analysis does not reflect the scientific merit of the cited work, at least in terms of reported quality.The results of this study need to be confirmed with a publication window larger than one year.

BackgroundIn a clinical science-based profession such as physiotherapy, research is mandatory to update knowledge and to provide cost-effective, high quality treatments. This study aimed to provide point prevalence of Italian physiotherapists who are academics, holding a PhD degree, or being authors of scientific papers. The scientific journal productivity of physiotherapists was also thoroughly analyzed.MethodsA descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out on all Italian physiotherapists. Academics, postdoctoral research fellows, and PhD graduates were identified by searching the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR), Italian Society of Physiotherapy, and university websites. Then, authors of articles indexed in Scopus were searched. The following data were extracted: type of affiliation, authorship order, H-index, number of publications and citations, name of journals, year of publication, and journal’s Impact Factor.ResultsThe prevalence of academics, physiotherapists holding a PhD, or being author was 0.01%, 0.05%, and 0.56%, respectively. We identified 1083 papers co-authored by Italian physiotherapists, and their number has progressively increased over the years (p < 0.001). There was a significant difference between researchers and clinicians in both publication productivity (p < 0.01), citations (p < 0.01), and H-Index (p = 0.05). Articles were published in 359 different journals, receiving a total of 13,373 citations.ConclusionsDespite the low prevalence of faculty members and the reduced availability of PhD programs in Italy (forcing some students to study abroad), the quantity and quality of journal productivity is growing fast, and an increasing number of physiotherapists are involved in research activities.

4 irccs santa lucia foundation, rome, italy; 5 unit of neurorehabilitation, ss. antonio e biagio e cesare arrigo hospital, alessandria, italy; 6 irccs san camillo, Venice, italy; 7 irccs don carlo Gnocchi foundation, florence, italy; 8 azienda usl di bologna, bologna, italy; 9 unit of rehabilitation Medicine and neurorehabilitation, irccs istituto delle scienze neurologiche di bologna (isnb), bologna, italy; 10 irccs "bonino pulejo" neurolysis center, Messina, italy; 11 consorzio siciliano di riabilitazione (c.s.r.), catania, italy; 12 campus bio-Medico university, rome, italy; 13 national center for innovative technologies in public health, italian national institute of health, rome, italy; 14 padre pio foundation and rehabilitation centers, san Giovanni rotondo, foggia, italy; 15 Molinette hospital, città della salute e della scienza, turin, italy; 16 crrf "Mons. luigi novarese," Moncrivello, Vercelli, italy; 17 don carlo Gnocchi foundation, turin, italy;

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted arm therapy (RAT) has been used mainly in stroke rehabilitation in the last 20 years with rising expectations and growing evidence summarized in systematic reviews (SRs). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to provide an overview of SRs about the effectiveness, within the ICF domains, and safety of RAT in the rehabilitation of adult with stroke compared to other treatments. METHODS: The search strategy was conducted using search strings adapted explicitly for each database. A screening base on title and abstract was realized to find all the potentially relevant studies. The methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed using AMSTAR-2. A pre-determined standardized form was used to realize the data extraction. RESULTS: 18 SRs were included in this overview. Generally, positive effects from the RAT were found for motor function and muscle strength, whereas there is no agreement for muscle tone effects. No effect was found for pain, and only a SR reported the positive impact of RAT in daily living activity. CONCLUSION: RAT can be considered a valuable option to increase motor function and muscle strength after stroke. However, the poor quality of most of the included SRs could limit the certainty around the results.

No abstract