2020 年 5 巻
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of reporting of systematic reviews published in Japanese in the field of physical therapy. Methods: The study design was a bibliometric analysis of systematic reviews. Two Japanese physical therapy journals (Physical Therapy Japan and Rigakuryoho Kagaku) were analysed using J-STAGE. The inclusion criterion was that articles were systematic reviews. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was used to score the reporting quality of eligible systematic reviews. The quality assessment was performed by two reviewers independently. Results: Of the 1578 articles identified, thirteen articles were included in this study. The median score of checklist items adequately adhered to across the included studies was 12 (range, 7–17). None of the studies adhered to the structured summary or additional analysis PRISMA items. The intention of bias assessment across studies was reported in only three studies (23%), and only two of these three reported the results. Conclusions: The reporting quality of systematic reviews published in Japanese physical therapy journals was suboptimal. Therefore, readers should critically appraise the contents of systematic reviews. It is recommended that journals should strictly require their authors to adhere to reporting guidelines.