Bridging the Evidence to Practice Gap: An Original Analysis of Peripheral Neuropathy Trials

This study is a cross-sectional meta-research analysis using systematic methods to evaluate the clinical usefulness of published RCTs on peripheral neuropathy. The design is between-study (unpaired), with each RCT serving as a unique unit of analysis. No interventions are assigned, and there are no repeated measures or within-study comparisons. The primary outcome is the usefulness score of each RCT, assessed using the 13-item framework developed by van ’t Hooft et al. Each item is scored on a scale from 0 to 2, yielding a total usefulness score ranging from 0 to 26. Scores will be analyzed as both continuous outcomes and as grouped sub-domains (e.g., transparency vs. core domains of clinical usefulness). Predictor variables include publication year, intervention type, sample size, funding source, trial location, journal name and impact factor, and risk of bias classification. Descriptive statistics will be used to summarize trends, and linear regression models will be employed to identify factors associated with usefulness scores. As a secondary analysis of publicly available data from published studies, this research does not involve randomization, experimental manipulation, or interaction with human participants. The study is designed to improve understanding of trial design quality and translational potential.