The use of the Spanish version of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) Scale: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

File
Carmen Suarez-Serrano, Antonia Gomez-Conesa, Inmaculada Calvo-Muñoz, Jose Antonio Lopez-Lopez, Jose Manuel Garcia-Moreno
Purpose:

 To evaluate the use of the Spanish version of the PEDro scale, since its publication. To evaluate the use of the Spanish version of the PEDro scale, since its publication.

Methods:

An overview of systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses published between January 2013 and December 31, 2022, in either Spanish or English was conducted. Eligible studies had used the PEDro scale, with the lead authors (first, correspondence, and senior) from Spain or another Spanish-speaking country, and affiliated with a research institution in a Spanish-speaking country. The search was performed across several electronic databases, including Pubmed, Scielo, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PEDro. 

This study was registered in PROSPERO under the code CRD42024575584

Results:

We screened 3,445 references and retrieved 587 reports that met our inclusion criteria. From these, a representative sample of 189 studies (32.20%) was randomly selected for inclusion in this study.

Of the studies included, 138 studies (70.01%) were published in English and the remaining ones in Spanish. Concerning the countries where the studies were conducted, 163 (86.24%) were conducted in Spain, 13 in Colombia, 10 in Chile, and 3 studies in other countries.

Regarding the countries of affiliation of the primary authors, 167 studies (88.36%) came from Spain, and of the remaining, 15 studies from Chile, and 14 studies from Colombia.

The use of the PEDro scale was reported in the abstract of 115 studies (60.85%) In the full text of all studies, the use of the scale was reported.

In terms of the total number of authors, 941 authors participated in the studies. The number of authors ranged from a single author to eleven authors per study. The most common research team sizes were 4 authors (41 studies, 21.69%), 6 authors (39 studies, 20.63%), 5 authors (33 studies, 17.46%), and 3 authors (29 studies, 15.34%). The median number of authors was 5, and the interquartile range was 2. 

Conclusion(s):

A total of 941 authors contributed to the 189 reviewed studies. Despite the potentially widespread use of the Spanish version of the PEDro scale in SRs conducted in Spain and other Spanish-speaking countries, most primary authors affiliated with research institutions in these countries translate their work into English to publish in international journals. 


Implications:

The discrepancy between the potential number of SRs in Spanish-speaking using the Spanish version of the PEDro scale, and the higher number of publications in other languages is acceptable, as it does not diminish the significant impact of the scale’s use. 


Funding acknowledgements:
N/A
Keywords:
Systematic review
PEDro Scale
translations
Primary topic:
Research methodology, knowledge translation and implementation science
Did this work require ethics approval?:
No
Has any of this material been/due to be published or presented at another national or international conference prior to the World Physiotherapy Congress 2025?:
No

Back to the listing