Over the past few years, PTJ has developed new processes to better ensure that we publish credible, high-quality research and to improve the quality of the information that we share with our readers. During the past 6 months, our Editorial Board piloted a new process for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Through “trial” and error, we've learned a great deal, and we're ready to share our decisions with our community of authors, readers, and reviewers.
Since 2005, the number of RCTs submitted to PTJ has increased almost four-fold. We believe that this growth indicates continued maturation of our science and increased success in securing grants to support our research efforts. Although there are limitations in translating results from RCTs directly into clinical practice, RCTs are still important in the evidence hierarchy. So, as we move forward in promoting comparative effectiveness and translational science, it is critical that we also publish high-quality RCTs.
A few years ago, we took a first step to foster the transparent reporting of clinical trials and to help avoid the problems that arise when trials are reported inadequately: PTJ endorsed the CONSORT statement and its extensions. Authors of RCTs are required to include a flow diagram within the manuscript and submit the CONSORT checklist. In addition, PTJ requires all RCTs to be registered in an accepted clinical trial registry, so that the registration can be compared with the manuscript to ensure that the results reported are consistent with the original research intent.
Now, we've stepped up our efforts to include better prescreening of RCTs. The goal is to provide feedback to authors as early as possible and not make them wait for full review if their trial does not meet our criteria. All manuscripts reporting on RCTs are prescreened at submission for missing information and then prescreened by trial methods reviewers. These reviewers—who also are Editorial Board members—have been selected because of their expertise in RCT methods. When the trial methods have passed the prescreen, and if the trial methods reviewer is not also serving as the content editor, another Editorial Board member prescreens the manuscript for novelty and relevance of content. A flowchart of our process is included in the Figure. We want the process and rationale to be clear to authors and readers alike. If this process results in more efficiency for authors and the review team, we may apply it to manuscripts reporting on other types of research, such as systematic reviews and qualitative studies.
Flowchart of RCT screening process.
I look forward to discussing the value of superiority and equivalence RCTs. I look forward to systematic reviews that include RCTs published in PTJ. And…I look forward to the submission of innovative trial designs. Thank you, authors, for submitting your work to our Journal. Thank you, review team, for the incredible job that you do reviewing manuscripts. Thank you, readers, for demanding that we publish work relevant to clinical practice.
We welcome your comments.
- © 2012 American Physical Therapy Association
