The Experts below are selected from a list of 297 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Anne M. Moseley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Using research to guide practice: The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro).
Brazilian journal of physical therapy, 2019Co-Authors: Anne M. Moseley, Mark R. Elkins, Philip J. Van Der Wees, Marina B. PinheiroAbstract:Abstract Background The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) is a free, preeminent, global resource to support evidence-based physical therapy. PEDro provides rapid access to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and clinical practice guidelines evaluating physical therapy interventions. Methods This paper describes the PEDro scale, PEDro contents, who uses PEDro, searching, browsing the latest content, and developing skills in evidence-based physical therapy. Strategies specifically developed to break down barriers for Portuguese-speaking physical therapists are emphasized. Results All trials indexed in PEDro are assessed for methodological quality using the 10-point PEDro scale. These ratings are used to rank search results. In August 2019 PEDro indexed 44,309 articles: 34,619 trials, 9004 reviews, and 686 guidelines. The number of trials is predicted to double by 2025. PEDro users come from 214 countries. Physical therapists in Brazil are the largest users (23% of all searches). Physical therapists are encouraged to use the PEDro advanced search page to find answers for their clinical questions. PEDro’s ‘Evidence in your inbox’ allows physical therapists to browse the latest content. To assist users develop skills in evidence-based physical therapy, PEDro includes tutorials and a series of ‘how to’ videos. PEDro web-site is fully available in Portuguese and English. Conclusion PEDro facilitates the use of high-quality clinical research by physical therapy clinicians, educators, students, and researchers. In 2019 PEDro celebrated its twentieth anniversary. Some enhancements to mark this milestone include launching a new database called DiTA (Diagnostic Test Accuracy) that focuses on the accuracy of diagnostic tests used by physical therapists.
-
agreement between the cochrane risk of bias tool and physiotherapy evidence database PEDro scale a meta epidemiological study of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions
PLOS ONE, 2019Co-Authors: Anne M. Moseley, Catherine Sherrington, Prinon Rahman, George A Wells, Joshua R Zadro, Karine Toupinapril, Lucie BrosseauAbstract:Background The Cochrane risk of bias (CROB) tool and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale are used to evaluate risk of bias of randomized controlled trials. We assessed the level of agreement between the instruments. Methods We searched the Cochrane Library to identify trials included in systematic reviews evaluating physical therapy interventions. For trials that met our inclusion criteria (primary reference in Cochrane review, review used CROB (2008 version), indexed in PEDro), CROB items were extracted from the reviews and PEDro items and total score were downloaded from PEDro. Kappa statistics were used to determine the agreement between CROB and PEDro scale items that evaluate similar constructs (e.g., randomization). The total PEDro score was compared to the CROB summary score (% of items met) using an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient. Sensitivity analyses explored the impact of the CROB “unclear” category and variants of CROB blinding items. Kappa statistics were used to determine agreement between different thresholds for “acceptable” risk of bias between CROB and PEDro scale summary scores. Results We included 1442 trials from 108 Cochrane reviews. Agreement was “moderate” for three of the six CROB and PEDro scale items that evaluate similar constructs (allocation concealment, participant blinding, assessor blinding; Kappa = 0.479–0.582). Agreement between the summary scores was “poor” (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.285). Agreement was highest when the CROB “unclear” category was collapsed with “high” and when participant, personnel and assessor blinding were evaluated separately in CROB. Agreement for different thresholds for “acceptable” risk of bias between CROB and PEDro summary scores was, at best, “fair”. Conclusion There was moderate agreement for half of the PEDro and CROB items that evaluate similar constructs. Interpretation of the CROB “unclear” category and variants of the CROB blinding items substantially influenced agreement. Either instrument can be used to quantify risk of bias, but they can’t be used interchangeably.
-
Societá Italiana de Fisioterapia and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro).
Archives of physiotherapy, 2019Co-Authors: Mark R. Elkins, Anne M. MoseleyAbstract:This paper provides an overview of a free resource that can be used by physiotherapists to assist their efforts to undertake evidence-based practice. The resource is the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro; www.PEDro.org.au ) – a searchable online database that in February 2019 indexes the details of over 42,000 pieces of published evidence about the effects of physiotherapy interventions. PEDro is searched millions of times each year by users worldwide. Societa Italiana de Fisioterapia (SIF; www.sif-fisioterapia.it ) has entered into a collaboration with the developers of PEDro. In addition to describing the evidence available on PEDro and who uses it, this paper also summarises the features of PEDro that can facilitate evidence-based physiotherapy. This paper concludes by outlining the collaboration between SIF and PEDro.
-
Quality, language, subdiscipline and promotion were associated with article accesses on Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro)
Physiotherapy, 2017Co-Authors: Tiê Parma Yamato, Mark R. Elkins, M Arora, Matthew L. Stevens, Anne M. MoseleyAbstract:Abstract Objective To quantify the relationship between the number of times articles are accessed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and the article characteristics. A secondary aim was to examine the relationship between accesses and the number of citations of articles. Method The study was conducted to derive prediction models for the number of accesses of articles indexed on PEDro from factors that may influence an article’s accesses. All articles available on PEDro from August 2014 to January 2015 were included. We extracted variables relating to the algorithm used to present PEDro search results (research design, year of publication, PEDro score, source of systematic review (Cochrane or non-Cochrane)) plus language, subdiscipline of physiotherapy, and whether articles were promoted to PEDro users. Three predictive models were examined using multiple regression analysis. Citation and journal impact factor were downloaded. Results There were 29,313 articles indexed in this period. We identified seven factors that predicted the number of accesses. More accesses were noted for factors related to the algorithm used to present PEDro search results (synthesis research (i.e., guidelines and reviews), recent articles, Cochrane reviews, and higher PEDro score) plus publication in English and being promoted to PEDro users. The musculoskeletal, neurology, orthopaedics, sports, and paediatrics subdisciplines were associated with more accesses. We also found that there was no association between number of accesses and citations. Conclusion The number of times an article is accessed on PEDro is partly predicted by how condensed and high quality the evidence it contains is.
-
the PEDro scale had acceptably high convergent validity construct validity and interrater reliability in evaluating methodological quality of pharmaceutical trials
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2017Co-Authors: Tiê Parma Yamato, Christopher G. Maher, Bart W Koes, Anne M. MoseleyAbstract:Abstract Background and Objective The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale has been widely used to investigate methodological quality in physiotherapy randomized controlled trials; however, its validity has not been tested for pharmaceutical trials. The aim of this study was to investigate the validity and interrater reliability of the PEDro scale for pharmaceutical trials. The reliability was also examined for the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Group risk of bias tool. Methods This is a secondary analysis of data from a previous study. We considered randomized placebo controlled trials evaluating any pain medication for chronic spinal pain or osteoarthritis. Convergent validity was evaluated by correlating the PEDro score with the summary score of the CBN risk of bias tool. The construct validity was tested using a linear regression analysis to determine the degree to which the total PEDro score is associated with treatment effect sizes, journal impact factor, and the summary score for the CBN risk of bias tool. The interrater reliability was estimated using the Prevalence and Bias Adjusted Kappa coefficient and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the PEDro scale and CBN risk of bias tool. Results Fifty-three trials were included, with 91 treatment effect sizes included in the analyses. The correlation between PEDro scale and CBN risk of bias tool was 0.83 (95% CI 0.76–0.88) after adjusting for reliability, indicating strong convergence. The PEDro score was inversely associated with effect sizes, significantly associated with the summary score for the CBN risk of bias tool, and not associated with the journal impact factor. The interrater reliability for each item of the PEDro scale and CBN risk of bias tool was at least substantial for most items (>0.60). The intraclass correlation coefficient for the PEDro score was 0.80 (95% CI 0.68–0.88), and for the CBN, risk of bias tool was 0.81 (95% CI 0.69–0.88). Conclusion There was evidence for the convergent and construct validity for the PEDro scale when used to evaluate methodological quality of pharmacological trials. Both risk of bias tools have acceptably high interrater reliability.
Catherine Sherrington - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
agreement between the cochrane risk of bias tool and physiotherapy evidence database PEDro scale a meta epidemiological study of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions
PLOS ONE, 2019Co-Authors: Anne M. Moseley, Catherine Sherrington, Prinon Rahman, George A Wells, Joshua R Zadro, Karine Toupinapril, Lucie BrosseauAbstract:Background The Cochrane risk of bias (CROB) tool and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale are used to evaluate risk of bias of randomized controlled trials. We assessed the level of agreement between the instruments. Methods We searched the Cochrane Library to identify trials included in systematic reviews evaluating physical therapy interventions. For trials that met our inclusion criteria (primary reference in Cochrane review, review used CROB (2008 version), indexed in PEDro), CROB items were extracted from the reviews and PEDro items and total score were downloaded from PEDro. Kappa statistics were used to determine the agreement between CROB and PEDro scale items that evaluate similar constructs (e.g., randomization). The total PEDro score was compared to the CROB summary score (% of items met) using an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient. Sensitivity analyses explored the impact of the CROB “unclear” category and variants of CROB blinding items. Kappa statistics were used to determine agreement between different thresholds for “acceptable” risk of bias between CROB and PEDro scale summary scores. Results We included 1442 trials from 108 Cochrane reviews. Agreement was “moderate” for three of the six CROB and PEDro scale items that evaluate similar constructs (allocation concealment, participant blinding, assessor blinding; Kappa = 0.479–0.582). Agreement between the summary scores was “poor” (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.285). Agreement was highest when the CROB “unclear” category was collapsed with “high” and when participant, personnel and assessor blinding were evaluated separately in CROB. Agreement for different thresholds for “acceptable” risk of bias between CROB and PEDro summary scores was, at best, “fair”. Conclusion There was moderate agreement for half of the PEDro and CROB items that evaluate similar constructs. Interpretation of the CROB “unclear” category and variants of the CROB blinding items substantially influenced agreement. Either instrument can be used to quantify risk of bias, but they can’t be used interchangeably.
-
Growth in the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and use of the PEDro scale
British journal of sports medicine, 2012Co-Authors: Mark R. Elkins, Anne M. Moseley, Catherine Sherrington, Robert D. Herbert, Christopher G. MaherAbstract:In 2010, the British Journal of Sports Medicine ( BJSM ) published an editorial1 about the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro, www.PEDro.org.au). The editorial described how this freely available bibliographic database directs users to high-quality evidence about the effects of physiotherapy interventions. The growth of PEDro to that time was also described; it was shown that the number of records on the database had doubled every 3.5 years. This exponential growth has continued, and PEDro now indexes reports of over 18 000 randomised trials and 3500 systematic reviews. Since that editorial, growth has occurred in other aspects of PEDro as well. For each article retrieved by a search of PEDro, users can access the title, abstract, citation details and, where available, a link to a full-text copy of the article. The range of links to full text has recently been expanded and PEDro now links to full-text versions of papers via PubMed Central, the Maastricht Centre for Evidence Based Physiotherapy, the digital object identifier, PubMed and the publisher. This expansion in the range of links to possible sources of the full-text article improves the likelihood that users can access the evidence they identify when searching PEDro. Access to full text through these links is often free of charge. Anyone who wishes to keep abreast of new evidence can now elect to receive a monthly update of …
-
central PEDro pubmed and embase are the most comprehensive databases indexing randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions
Physical Therapy, 2011Co-Authors: Zoe A Michaleff, Anne M. Moseley, Mark R. Elkins, Robert D. Herbert, Christopher G. Maher, Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa, Catherine SherringtonAbstract:Background Many bibliographic databases index research studies evaluating the effects of health care interventions. One study has concluded that the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) has the most complete indexing of reports of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions, but the design of that study may have exaggerated estimates of the completeness of indexing by PEDro. Objective The purpose of this study was to compare the completeness of indexing of reports of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions by 8 bibliographic databases. Design This study was an audit of bibliographic databases. Methods Prespecified criteria were used to identify 400 reports of randomized controlled trials from the reference lists of systematic reviews published in 2008 that evaluated physical therapy interventions. Eight databases (AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, Hooked on Evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO, and PubMed) were searched for each trial report. The proportion of the 400 trial reports indexed by each database was calculated. Results The proportions of the 400 trial reports indexed by the databases were as follows: CENTRAL, 95%; PEDro, 92%; PubMed, 89%; EMBASE, 88%; CINAHL, 53%; AMED, 50%; Hooked on Evidence, 45%; and PsycINFO, 6%. Almost all of the trial reports (99%) were found in at least 1 database, and 88% were indexed by 4 or more databases. Four trial reports were uniquely indexed by a single database only (2 in CENTRAL and 1 each in PEDro and PubMed). Limitations The results are only applicable to searching for English-language published reports of randomized controlled trials evaluating physical therapy interventions. Conclusions The 4 most comprehensive databases of trial reports evaluating physical therapy interventions were CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE. Clinicians seeking quick answers to clinical questions could search any of these databases knowing that all are reasonably comprehensive. PEDro, unlike the other 3 most complete databases, is specific to physical therapy, so studies not relevant to physical therapy are less likely to be retrieved. Researchers could use CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE in combination to conduct exhaustive searches for randomized trials in physical therapy.
-
there was evidence of convergent and construct validity of physiotherapy evidence database quality scale for physiotherapy trials
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2010Co-Authors: Luciana G Macedo, Anne M. Moseley, Mark R. Elkins, Robert D. Herbert, Christopher G. Maher, Catherine SherringtonAbstract:Abstract Objective To evaluate the convergent and construct validity of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale used to rate the methodological quality of randomized trials in physiotherapy. Study Design and Setting PEDro total scores and individual-item scores were extracted from 9,456 physiotherapy trials indexed on PEDro. Convergent validity was tested by comparing PEDro total scores with three other quality scales. Construct validity was tested by regressing the PEDro score and individual-item scores with the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge impact factors (IF) and SCImago journal rankings (SJR) for the journals in which the trials were published. Results Testing of convergent validity revealed correlations with the other quality scales ranging from 0.31 to 0.69. The PEDro total score was weakly but significantly associated with IF and SJR (P Conclusion This study provides preliminary evidence of the convergent and construct validity of the PEDro total score and the construct validity of eight individual scale items.
-
Ten years of evidence to guide physiotherapy interventions: Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro)
British journal of sports medicine, 2009Co-Authors: Catherine Sherrington, Anne M. Moseley, Mark R. Elkins, Robert D. Herbert, Christopher G. MaherAbstract:Clinicians are increasingly using evidence from high-quality clinical research to guide clinical decision making. Recent articles in this journal have examined research evidence to assist in clinical decisions as diverse as the prescription of running shoes,1 exercise therapy in the treatment of chronic disease2 and the use of protective equipment to prevent concussion.3 The most valid information about the effectiveness of healthcare interventions is provided by randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials.4 The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro; http://www.PEDro.org.au) provides easy access to randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews of physiotherapy interventions. PEDro also includes links to evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. October 2009 marked the 10th anniversary of the launch of PEDro. PEDro is freely available on the internet. The database indexes citation details, author abstracts and, where available, links to full text for randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and practice guidelines in physiotherapy. Although the PEDro database is designed primarily for health professionals, a subsite, called Physiotherapy Choices (http://www.physiotherapychoices.org.au), provides information in lay terms directly to consumers of physiotherapy services. As of August 2009, more than 15 000 records (12 408 trials, 2060 reviews and 603 guidelines) have been indexed on PEDro. Each record is coded according to the subdiscipline(s) of physiotherapy it addresses. PEDro now includes 615 randomised controlled trials and 102 …
Christopher G. Maher - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the PEDro scale had acceptably high convergent validity construct validity and interrater reliability in evaluating methodological quality of pharmaceutical trials
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2017Co-Authors: Tiê Parma Yamato, Christopher G. Maher, Bart W Koes, Anne M. MoseleyAbstract:Abstract Background and Objective The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale has been widely used to investigate methodological quality in physiotherapy randomized controlled trials; however, its validity has not been tested for pharmaceutical trials. The aim of this study was to investigate the validity and interrater reliability of the PEDro scale for pharmaceutical trials. The reliability was also examined for the Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Group risk of bias tool. Methods This is a secondary analysis of data from a previous study. We considered randomized placebo controlled trials evaluating any pain medication for chronic spinal pain or osteoarthritis. Convergent validity was evaluated by correlating the PEDro score with the summary score of the CBN risk of bias tool. The construct validity was tested using a linear regression analysis to determine the degree to which the total PEDro score is associated with treatment effect sizes, journal impact factor, and the summary score for the CBN risk of bias tool. The interrater reliability was estimated using the Prevalence and Bias Adjusted Kappa coefficient and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the PEDro scale and CBN risk of bias tool. Results Fifty-three trials were included, with 91 treatment effect sizes included in the analyses. The correlation between PEDro scale and CBN risk of bias tool was 0.83 (95% CI 0.76–0.88) after adjusting for reliability, indicating strong convergence. The PEDro score was inversely associated with effect sizes, significantly associated with the summary score for the CBN risk of bias tool, and not associated with the journal impact factor. The interrater reliability for each item of the PEDro scale and CBN risk of bias tool was at least substantial for most items (>0.60). The intraclass correlation coefficient for the PEDro score was 0.80 (95% CI 0.68–0.88), and for the CBN, risk of bias tool was 0.81 (95% CI 0.69–0.88). Conclusion There was evidence for the convergent and construct validity for the PEDro scale when used to evaluate methodological quality of pharmacological trials. Both risk of bias tools have acceptably high interrater reliability.
-
what searches do users run on PEDro an analysis of 893 971 search commands over a 6 month period
Methods of Information in Medicine, 2016Co-Authors: Matthew L. Stevens, Anne M. Moseley, Mark R. Elkins, Christine Lin, Christopher G. MaherAbstract:Background: Clinicians must be able to search effectively for relevant research if they are to provide evidence-based healthcare. It is therefore relevant to consider how users search databases of evidence in healthcare, including what information users look for and what search strategies they employ. To date such analyses have been restricted to the PubMed database. Although the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) is searched millions of times each year, no studies have investigated how users search PEDro. Objectives: To assess the content and quality of searches conducted on PEDro. Methods: Searches conducted on the PEDro website over 6 months were downloaded and the ‘get’ commands and page-views extracted. The following data were tabulated: the 25 most common searches; the number of search terms used; the frequency of use of simple and advanced searches, including the use of each advanced search field; and the frequency of use of various search strategies. Results: Between August 2014 and January 2015, 893,971 search commands were entered on PEDro. Fewer than 18 % of these searches used the advanced search features of PEDro. ‘Musculoskeletal’ was the most common subdiscipline searched, while ‘low back pain’ was the most common individual search. Around 20 % of all searches contained errors. Conclusions: PEDro is a commonly used evidence resource, but searching appears to be sub-optimal in many cases. The effectiveness of searches conducted by users needs to improve, which could be facilitated by methods such as targeted training and amending the search interface.
-
Growth in the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and use of the PEDro scale
British journal of sports medicine, 2012Co-Authors: Mark R. Elkins, Anne M. Moseley, Catherine Sherrington, Robert D. Herbert, Christopher G. MaherAbstract:In 2010, the British Journal of Sports Medicine ( BJSM ) published an editorial1 about the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro, www.PEDro.org.au). The editorial described how this freely available bibliographic database directs users to high-quality evidence about the effects of physiotherapy interventions. The growth of PEDro to that time was also described; it was shown that the number of records on the database had doubled every 3.5 years. This exponential growth has continued, and PEDro now indexes reports of over 18 000 randomised trials and 3500 systematic reviews. Since that editorial, growth has occurred in other aspects of PEDro as well. For each article retrieved by a search of PEDro, users can access the title, abstract, citation details and, where available, a link to a full-text copy of the article. The range of links to full text has recently been expanded and PEDro now links to full-text versions of papers via PubMed Central, the Maastricht Centre for Evidence Based Physiotherapy, the digital object identifier, PubMed and the publisher. This expansion in the range of links to possible sources of the full-text article improves the likelihood that users can access the evidence they identify when searching PEDro. Access to full text through these links is often free of charge. Anyone who wishes to keep abreast of new evidence can now elect to receive a monthly update of …
-
central PEDro pubmed and embase are the most comprehensive databases indexing randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions
Physical Therapy, 2011Co-Authors: Zoe A Michaleff, Anne M. Moseley, Mark R. Elkins, Robert D. Herbert, Christopher G. Maher, Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa, Catherine SherringtonAbstract:Background Many bibliographic databases index research studies evaluating the effects of health care interventions. One study has concluded that the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) has the most complete indexing of reports of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions, but the design of that study may have exaggerated estimates of the completeness of indexing by PEDro. Objective The purpose of this study was to compare the completeness of indexing of reports of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions by 8 bibliographic databases. Design This study was an audit of bibliographic databases. Methods Prespecified criteria were used to identify 400 reports of randomized controlled trials from the reference lists of systematic reviews published in 2008 that evaluated physical therapy interventions. Eight databases (AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, Hooked on Evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO, and PubMed) were searched for each trial report. The proportion of the 400 trial reports indexed by each database was calculated. Results The proportions of the 400 trial reports indexed by the databases were as follows: CENTRAL, 95%; PEDro, 92%; PubMed, 89%; EMBASE, 88%; CINAHL, 53%; AMED, 50%; Hooked on Evidence, 45%; and PsycINFO, 6%. Almost all of the trial reports (99%) were found in at least 1 database, and 88% were indexed by 4 or more databases. Four trial reports were uniquely indexed by a single database only (2 in CENTRAL and 1 each in PEDro and PubMed). Limitations The results are only applicable to searching for English-language published reports of randomized controlled trials evaluating physical therapy interventions. Conclusions The 4 most comprehensive databases of trial reports evaluating physical therapy interventions were CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE. Clinicians seeking quick answers to clinical questions could search any of these databases knowing that all are reasonably comprehensive. PEDro, unlike the other 3 most complete databases, is specific to physical therapy, so studies not relevant to physical therapy are less likely to be retrieved. Researchers could use CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE in combination to conduct exhaustive searches for randomized trials in physical therapy.
-
there was evidence of convergent and construct validity of physiotherapy evidence database quality scale for physiotherapy trials
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2010Co-Authors: Luciana G Macedo, Anne M. Moseley, Mark R. Elkins, Robert D. Herbert, Christopher G. Maher, Catherine SherringtonAbstract:Abstract Objective To evaluate the convergent and construct validity of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale used to rate the methodological quality of randomized trials in physiotherapy. Study Design and Setting PEDro total scores and individual-item scores were extracted from 9,456 physiotherapy trials indexed on PEDro. Convergent validity was tested by comparing PEDro total scores with three other quality scales. Construct validity was tested by regressing the PEDro score and individual-item scores with the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge impact factors (IF) and SCImago journal rankings (SJR) for the journals in which the trials were published. Results Testing of convergent validity revealed correlations with the other quality scales ranging from 0.31 to 0.69. The PEDro total score was weakly but significantly associated with IF and SJR (P Conclusion This study provides preliminary evidence of the convergent and construct validity of the PEDro total score and the construct validity of eight individual scale items.
Mirjami Lantto - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
San PEDro river archive
cultural geographies, 2019Co-Authors: Mirjami LanttoAbstract:In this experimental photo essay, I begin to craft an imaginative archive of the San PEDro river (Arizona) as a tentative conversation between geomorphology and creativity. Through several visits t...
Hector M. Arias - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Land cover changes and climate fluctuations in the upper San PEDro River Basin in Sonora, Mexico.
Advances in Global Change Research, 2003Co-Authors: Hector M. AriasAbstract:The San PEDro River is a transboundary river that originates in Sonora, Mexico, and flows north into Arizona in the United States. Previous studies using satellite imagery obtained for different years from 1973 through 1997 showed significant changes in land cover in the upper San PEDro region in Mexico. Here, we examine whether these land cover changes over the past few decades are related to climatic changes, to human impacts on the landscape, or both. In particular, this study examines rainfall fluctuations during the past 50 years for the San PEDro Basin, and contrasts those changes with land cover changes in the Upper San PEDro.
