A need for an augmented review when reviewing rehabilitation research

Abstract

There is a need for additional strategies for performing systematic reviews (SRs) to improve translation of findings into practice and to influence health policy. SRs critically appraise research methodology and determine level of evidence of research findings. The standard type of SR identifies randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as providing the most valid data and highest level of evidence. RCTs are not among the most frequently used research design in disability and health research. RCTs usually measure impairments for the primary research outcome rather than improved function, participation or societal integration. It forces a choice between "validity" and "utility/relevance." Other approaches have effectively been used to assess the validity of alternative research designs, whose outcomes focus on function and patient-reported outcomes. We propose that utilizing existing evaluation tools that measure knowledge, dissemination and utility of findings, may help improve the translation of findings into practice and health policy.

Keywords: Knowledge translation; Rehabilitation research; Systematic review.