A bibliometric analysis of statistical terms used in American Physical Therapy Association journals (2011-2012): evidence for educating physical therapists

摘要

Background A primary barrier to the implementation of evidence based practice (EBP) in physical therapy is therapists’ limited ability to understand and interpret statistics. Physical therapists demonstrate limited skills and report low self-efficacy for interpreting results of statistical procedures. While standards for physical therapist education include statistics, little empirical evidence is available to inform what should constitute such curricula. The purpose of this study was to conduct a census of the statistical terms and study designs used in physical therapy literature and to use the results to make recommendations for curricular development in physical therapist education. Methods We conducted a bibliometric analysis of 14 peer-reviewed journals associated with the American Physical Therapy Association over 12?months (Oct 2011-Sept 2012). Trained raters recorded every statistical term appearing in identified systematic reviews, primary research reports, and case series and case reports. Investigator-reported study design was also recorded. Terms representing the same statistical test or concept were combined into a single, representative term. Cumulative percentage was used to identify the most common representative statistical terms. Common representative terms were organized into eight categories to inform curricular design. Results Of 485 articles reviewed, 391 met the inclusion criteria. These 391 articles used 532 different terms which were combined into 321 representative terms; 13.1 (sd?=?8.0) terms per article. Eighty-one representative terms constituted 90?% of all representative term occurrences. Of the remaining 240 representative terms, 105 (44?%) were used in only one article. The most common study design was prospective cohort (32.5?%). Conclusions Physical therapy literature contains a large number of statistical terms and concepts for readers to navigate. However, in the year sampled, 81 representative terms accounted for 90?% of all occurrences. These “common representative terms” can be used to inform curricula to promote physical therapists’ skills, competency, and confidence in interpreting statistics in their professional literature. We make specific recommendations for curriculum development informed by our findings.