Reporting of “usual care” as the control group in randomized clinical trials of physiotherapy interventions for multiple sclerosis is poor: a systematic review

Objective: To compare the description of interventions defined as “usual care” in control groups with those provided in experimental groups in physiotherapy randomized clinical trials for multiple sclerosis. Methods: Two independent reviewers conducted a literature search and study selection from five databases from their inception to February 2021. Randomized clinical trials aimed to physiotherapy multiple sclerosis treatment and providing “usual care” in the control group were included. Intervention reporting was assessed using the TIDieR checklist. Word and reference counts for each group were extracted. The methodological quality was assessed by the PEDro scale. Results: Twenty-four articles were included. The TIDieR total scores, word, and reference count were statistically higher in the experimental group, when compared to the control group (p < 0.001). The TIDieR total score is not correlated with PEDro score, word, publication year, or reference counts. Conclusion: Control treatments identified as “usual care” are underdescribed when compared to experimental treatments, affecting the validity, generalizability, and interpretability of results.