BACKGROUND: The Modified Fresno Test was developed to assess knowledge and skills of both physical therapy (PT) professionals and students to use evidence-based practice (EBP). OBJECTIVES: To translate the Modified Fresno Test into Brazilian-Portuguese and to evaluate the test's reproducibility. METHOD: The first step consisted of adapting the instrument into the Brazilian-Portuguese language. Then, a total of 57 participants, including PT students, PT professors and PT practitioners, completed the translated instrument. The responses from the participants were used to evaluate reproducibility of the translated instrument. Internal consistency was calculated using the Cronbach's alpha. Reliability was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for continuous variables, and the Kappa coefficient (K) for categorical variables. The agreement was assessed using the standard error of the measurement (SEM). RESULTS: The cross-cultural adaptation process was appropriate, providing an adequate Brazilian-Portuguese version of the instrument. The internal consistency was good (α=0.769). The reliability for inter- and intra-rater assessment were ICC=0.89 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.93); for evaluator 1 was ICC=0.85 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.93); and for evaluator 2 was ICC=0.98 (95% CI 0.97 to 0.99). The SEM was 13.04 points for inter-rater assessment, 12.57 points for rater 1 and 4.59 points for rater 2. CONCLUSION: The Brazilian-Portuguese language version of the Modified Fresno Test showed satisfactory results in terms of reproducibility. The Modified Fresno Test will allow physical therapy professionals and students to be evaluated on the use of understanding EBP.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) has been widely used by health professionals. However, no study in Brazil has investigated the data regarding the knowledge and difficulties related to EBP from a representative sample of physical therapists.OBJECTIVE: To identify behavior, knowledge, skills, resources, opinions and perceived barriers of Brazilian physical therapists from the state of São Paulo regarding EBP.METHOD: A customized questionnaire about behavior, knowledge, skills, resources, opinions and perceived barriers regarding EBP was sent by email to a sample of 490 physical therapists registered by the Registration Board of São Paulo, Brazil. Physical therapists who did not respond to the questionnaire were contacted by telephone and/or letter. The data were analyzed descriptively.RESULTS: The final response rate was 64.4% (316/490). Because 60 physical therapists were no longer practicing, 256 answers were analyzed. The physical therapists reported that they routinely read scientific papers (89.5%) as a resource for professional development, followed by continuing education courses (88.3%) and books (86.3%). Approximately 35% of the respondents reported a clear understanding of the implementation of research findings in their practice; approximately 37% reported no difficulties in critically appraising scientific papers; and 67.2% strongly agreed that EBP is important for their practice. The most commonly reported barriers were related to difficulties in obtaining full-text papers (80.1%), using EBP may represent higher cost (80.1%) and the language of publication of the papers (70.3%).CONCLUSION: Physical therapists from São Paulo state believe that they have knowledge and skills to use EBP. Although they have favorable opinions regarding its implementation, they still encounter difficulties in implementing EBP successfully.

Revisões sistemáticas têm como objetivo sumarizar toda a evidência disponível, através de métodos rigorosos, para responder a uma pergunta de pesquisa específica com o mínimo de viés possível. Revisões sistemáticas são amplamente utilizadas na fisioterapia, porém nem todas as revisões possuem boa qualidade. Esse tutorial tem como objetivo guiar os autores do Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy sobre como revisões sistemáticas deveriam ser conduzidas e descritas para que sejam aceitas para publicação. Espera-se que esse tutorial irá auxiliar autores de revisões sistemáticas, assim como editores e revisores de periódicos em como conduzir, descrever, fazer análise crítica e interpretar esse tipo de delineamento de pesquisa.

Systematic reviews aim to summarize all evidence using very rigorous methods in order to address a specific research question with less bias as possible. Systematic reviews are widely used in the field of physical therapy, however not all reviews have good quality. This tutorial aims to guide authors of the Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy on how systematic reviews should be conducted and reported in order to be accepted for publication. It is expected that this tutorial will help authors of systematic reviews as well as journal editors and reviewers on how to conduct, report, critically appraise and interpret this type of study design.

BACKGROUND: There are several questionnaires available to assess quality of life in breast cancer, however the choice of the best questionnaire often does not take into account the adequacy of these questionnaires' measurement properties. OBJECTIVE: To test the measurement properties of two generic quality of life questionnaires and one quality of life questionnaire specific for women with breast cancer. METHOD: We assessed 106 women after surgery for breast cancer. The assessment included application of the SF-36, WHOQOL-bref, and FACT-B+4 questionnaires as well as the Global Perceived Effect and Pain Numerical Rating scales. The participants were interviewed on three occasions to investigate internal consistency, floor and ceiling effects, construct validity, reproducibility, and responsiveness. RESULTS: Most of the instruments' domains showed adequate internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha varying from 0.66 to 0.91). Reliability varied from poor to substantial (ICC2,1 between 0.39 and 0.87) and agreement varied from negative to very good. The SF-36 presented doubtful agreement and showed floor and ceiling effects in three domains. The domains of the generic questionnaires presented moderate to good correlation with the FACT-B+4 (Pearson varying from 0.31 to 0.69). The internal responsiveness varied from small to large (ES varying from -0.26 to 0.98) and external responsiveness was found in only some of the instruments' domains. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the measurement properties tested for the WHOQOL-bref and FACT-B+4 were adequate as was their ability to assess quality of life in women with breast cancer. The SF-36 showed inadequacy in agreement and floor and ceiling effects and should not be used in women with breast cancer.

Contextualização: Instrumentos observacionais como o Rapid Entire Body Assessment avaliam de forma rápida os riscos biomecânicos presentes no ambiente de trabalho. No entanto, para a utilização desses instrumentos, é necessário realizar tradução, adaptação transcultural e testar propriedades de medida. Objetivos: Realizar a tradução, adaptação transcultural para o português-brasileiro e testar a confiabilidade do instrumento REBA. Método: Foram realizados os procedimentos de tradução e adaptação para o português-brasileiro seguindo as diretrizes propostas, por meio da realização da tradução, síntese das traduções, retrotradução, comitê de revisão, pré-teste da versão pré-final, além do teste de confiabilidade e percentual de concordância intra e interavaliadores calculados pelo Coeficiente Kappa ponderado linear associado ao intervalo de confiança de 95% e pela tabela 2×2, respectivamente. Resultados: Os procedimentos realizados para tradução e adaptação foram apropriados, as adequações necessárias foram realizadas no instrumento. A confiabilidade intra e interavaliadores apresentou valores de 0,104 a 0,504, variando de muito pobre a moderada. Para o percentual de concordância, os valores encontrados variaram de 5,66% a 69,81%. O percentual de concordância apresentou-se mais próximo de 100% no item antebraço (69,81%) do intra-avaliador 1 e no item pernas e antebraço (62,26%) do intra-avaliador 2. Conclusões: Os processos de tradução e adaptação transcultural foram realizados no REBA permitindo obter a versão brasileira do instrumento. Contudo, apesar de a confiabilidade da versão traduzida e adaptada ter sido testada adequadamente, os valores encontrados mostram que esse instrumento não apresenta valores de confiabilidade aceitáveis pelas diretrizes, indicando que deve ser refeita. Portanto, é necessário cautela para interpretar os riscos biomecânicos mensurados por esse instrumento.

Background: Observational instruments, such as the Rapid Entire Body Assessment, quickly assess biomechanical risks present in the workplace. However, in order to use these instruments, it is necessary to conduct the translational/cross-cultural adaptation of the instrument and test its measurement properties. Objectives: To perform the translation and the cross-cultural adaptation to Brazilian-Portuguese and test the reliability of the REBA instrument. Method: The procedures of translation and cross-cultural adaptation to Brazilian-Portuguese were conducted following proposed guidelines that involved translation, synthesis of translations, back translation, committee review and testing of the pre-final version. In addition, reliability and the intra- and inter-rater percent agreement were obtained with the Linear Weighted Kappa Coefficient that was associated with the 95% Confidence Interval and the cross tabulation 2×2. Results : The procedures for translation and adaptation were adequate and the necessary adjustments were conducted on the instrument. The intra- and inter-rater reliability showed values of 0.104 to 0.504, respectively, ranging from very poor to moderate. The percentage agreement values ranged from 5.66% to 69.81%. The percentage agreement was closer to 100% at the item 'upper arm' (69.81%) for the Intra-rater 1 and at the items 'legs' and 'upper arm' for the Intra-rater 2 (62.26%). Conclusions: The processes of translation and cross-cultural adaptation were conducted on the REBA instrument and the Brazilian version of the instrument was obtained. However, despite the reliability of the tests used to correct the translated and adapted version, the reliability values are unacceptable according to the guidelines standard, indicating that the reliability must be re-evaluated. Therefore, caution in the interpretation of the biomechanical risks measured by this instrument should be taken.

Background : While the research design of articles published in medical journals and in some physical therapy journals has already been evaluated, this has not been investigated in Brazilian physical therapy journals. Objective : To describe the research design used in all articles published in Brazilian scientific journals that are freely available, have high Qualis rankings, and are relevant to physical therapy over a 7-year period. Method : We extracted the bibliometric data, research design, research type (human or animal), and clinical area for all articles published. The articles were grouped into their level of evidence, and descriptive analyses were performed. We calculated the frequency, proportions of articles, and 95% confidence interval of these proportions with each research design in each journal. We cross-tabulated the clinical areas with research designs (expressed as number and percentages). Results : A total of 1,458 articles from four Brazilian journals were found: Revista Brasileira de Fisioterapia, Revista Fisioterapia em Movimento, Revista Fisioterapia e Pesquisa, and Revista Acta Fisiátrica. The majority of articles were classified as level II of evidence (60%), followed by level III (29%) and level I (10%). The most prevalent research designs were cross-sectional studies (38%), single-case or case-series studies, and narrative reviews. Most articles reported human research and were in the musculoskeletal, neurologic, and cardiothoracic areas. Conclusions : Most of the research published in Brazilian physical therapy journals used levels II and III of evidence. Increasing the publication rate of systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials would provide more high-quality evidence to guide evidence-based physical therapy practice.

CONTEXTUALIZAÇÃO: Nas últimas duas décadas, ocorreu um nítido crescimento, de até seis vezes, do número de artigos científicos que são diretamente relevantes para a prática da Fisioterapia. No entanto, junto com esse rápido crescimento, tem-se dado pouca atenção à transparência de como são descritos os métodos e os resultados desses estudos. Mais recentemente, grupos de pesquisadores ao redor do mundo têm feito tentativas bem sucedidas para resolver esse problema por meio da criação de diretrizes que auxiliam os pesquisadores não apenas na preparação dos manuscritos, mas também garantem que detalhes importantes relacionados ao delineamento e à metodologia do estudo sejam devidamente descritos. OBJETIVO: Apresentar quatro diretrizes específicas para descrever artigos científicos, que são mais conhecidas como "recomendações". DISCUSSÃO: Uma rede denominada EQUATOR (Melhorando a Qualidade e a Transparência da Pesquisa em Saúde) foi criada com a missão principal de fornecer os princípios básicos de como escrever artigos científicos de forma clara e fidedigna. A rede EQUATOR engloba, entre outros, as recomendações CONSORT, que estão relacionadas com estudos controlados aleatorizados; as recomendações PRISMA, que estão relacionadas com revisões sistemáticas e meta-análises; as recomendações STROBE, que estão relacionadas com estudos observacionais e as recomendações STARD, que estão relacionadas com a descrição de estudos referentes à precisão de testes diagnósticos. Algumas revistas científicas têm apoiado a utilização dessas recomendações, enquanto, em outras revistas, o uso é obrigatório. O objetivo da utilização dessas recomendações pelas revistas científicas é garantir a tomada rápida de decisões relativas à publicação e à melhor qualidade possível de como o artigo científico foi reportado. Em última análise, essas recomendações irão ajudar os leitores, incluindo fisioterapeutas, a tomarem melhores decisões na prática clínica.

BACKGROUND: There was a clear grow, in the last 2 decades, of up to 6 fold in scientific articles that are directly relevant to physical therapy practice. However, along with this fast grow; little attention has been given to transparency when reporting research methods and results. More recently, groups of researchers around the world have made successful attempts to address this issue by creating guidelines that will help researchers not only on the preparation of manuscripts but also on making sure that important details related to design and methodology are controlled and reported. OBJECTIVE: To present four specific reporting guidelines, which are best known as "statements". DISCUSSION: A network named EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) was created with the main mission of providing basic principles for responsible and transparent reporting. The EQUATOR network encompasses, among others, the CONSORT statement which is related to randomized controlled trials; the PRISMA statement, which is related to systematic reviews and meta-analysis; the STROBE Statement, which is related to observational studies; and the STARD statement, which is related to reporting of accuracy of diagnostic tests. Some journals have recommended the use of these statements, while in others their use is mandatory. The goal of the use of these statements by journals is to guarantee fast decisions regarding publication and the best possible quality of reporting. Ultimately, it will help readers, including physical therapists, to make better decisions in clinical practice.