The struggle for evidence in physical and rehabilitation medicine: publication rate of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews is growing more than in other therapeutic fields

Objective The aim of the study was to evaluate the rate of publication of randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis in physical and rehabilitation medicine and its variation over time. Design We performed a bibliometric study and searched PubMed from inception to 2017, using National Library of Medicine 3rd level MeSH terms ("rehabilitation," "physical therapy modalities," and "drug therapy") and filters ("randomized controlled trial," "systematic reviews," and "meta-analysis"). We used descriptive statistics, and we calculated the best-fitting regression model for all data considered. Results The absolute number of articles is growing in rehabilitation as much as in other treatment fields such as drug therapy. Whereas the rate of growth of publications for all studies relative to PubMed is bigger for drug therapies than for rehabilitation and physical therapy, the rate of growth of randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis is significantly greater for rehabilitation and physical therapy (P < 0.001). In 2017, 19.3% and 28.2% of the total production of scientific articles for rehabilitation and physical therapy (respectively) were for randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews versus 11.3% for drug therapy. Conclusions Production of the highest form of research evidence (randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis) is continuously increasing in physical and rehabilitation medicine at a higher rate than in other treatment fields such as drug therapy. The quality and results of this evidence should be evaluated in future studies.