Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26668676›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine research2016

Systematic Literature Review on ICF From 2001 to 2013 in the Nordic Countries Focusing on Clinical and Rehabilitation Context.

Thomas Maribo, Kirsten S Petersen, Charlotte Handberg, Hanne Melchiorsen, Anne-Mette H Momsen, Claus V Nielsen, Matilde Leonardi, Merete Labriola

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Thomas MariboSection of Social Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Public Health, Rehabilitation Center Marselisborg, Aarhus University, Denmark ; Public Health and Quality Improvement, Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark.
Kirsten S PetersenSection of Social Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Public Health, Rehabilitation Center Marselisborg, Aarhus University, Denmark ; Public Health and Quality Improvement, Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark.
Charlotte HandbergSection of Social Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Public Health, Rehabilitation Center Marselisborg, Aarhus University, Denmark ; Public Health and Quality Improvement, Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark.
Hanne MelchiorsenPublic Health and Quality Improvement, Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark.
Anne-Mette H MomsenPublic Health and Quality Improvement, Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark.
Claus V NielsenSection of Social Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Public Health, Rehabilitation Center Marselisborg, Aarhus University, Denmark ; Public Health and Quality Improvement, Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark.
Matilde LeonardiNeurology Public Health and Disability Unit, Neurological Institute C. Besta, IRCCS Foundation, Milan, Italy.
Merete LabriolaSection of Social Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Public Health, Rehabilitation Center Marselisborg, Aarhus University, Denmark ; Public Health and Quality Improvement, Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present a systematic review on International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) used in the Nordic countries from 2001 through 2013, describing and quantifying the development in utilization of ICF, and describe the extent to which the different components of the ICF have been used. A search was conducted in EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycInfo. Papers from Nordic countries were included if ICF was mentioned in title or abstract. Papers were assigned to one of eight categories covering the wide rehabilitation area; furthermore, area of focus was assigned. Use of ICF components and intervention were coded in papers categorized as "clinical and/or rehabilitation contexts" or "non-clinical contexts". One hundred seventy papers were included, of these 99 papers were from the categories "clinical and/or rehabilitation contexts" or "non-clinical contexts". Forty-two percent of the 170 included papers were published in the period 2011 - 2013. There was an increase in ICF-relevant papers from 2001 to 2013, especially in the categories "clinical and/or rehabilitation contexts" and "non-clinical contexts". The most represented focus areas were neurology, musculoskeletal, and work-related areas. All five or at least four ICF components were mentioned in the results or discussions in most papers, and activity was most frequently mentioned.

Indexed as

Clinical contextComponentsICFInterventionNon-clinical contextRehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID26668676
PMCPMC4676339

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.