Demonstration of the test-retest reliability and sensitivity of the Lower Limb Functional Index-10 as a measure of functional recovery post burn injury: a cross-sectional repeated measures study design.

Margaret E Ryland, Tiffany L Grisbrook, Fiona M Wood, Michael Phillips, Dale W Edgar

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Burns & trauma, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Clinical Application of Transcutaneous Microcurrent Therapy for an Acute Traumatic Contusion in a Special Operations Military Officer: A Case Report.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
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

5 authors.

Margaret E RylandSchool of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Bentley, 6102 WA Australia.

Tiffany L GrisbrookSchool of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Bentley, 6102 WA Australia ; Fiona Wood Foundation of Western Australia, Fiona Stanley Hospital, 11 Warren Drive, Murdoch, 6150 WA Australia.

Fiona M WoodFiona Wood Foundation of Western Australia, Fiona Stanley Hospital, 11 Warren Drive, Murdoch, 6150 WA Australia ; State Adult Burn Unit, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Level 4, 11 Warren Smith Drive, Murdoch, 6150 WA Australia ; Burn Injury Research Unit, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, 6009 WA Australia.

Michael PhillipsHarry Perkins Institute of Medical Research, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, 6009 WA Australia.

Dale W EdgarFiona Wood Foundation of Western Australia, Fiona Stanley Hospital, 11 Warren Drive, Murdoch, 6150 WA Australia ; State Adult Burn Unit, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Level 4, 11 Warren Smith Drive, Murdoch, 6150 WA Australia ; Burn Injury Research Unit, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, 6009 WA Australia ; Burn Injury Research Node, The University of Notre Dame Australia, 19 Mouat St, Fremantle, 6160 WA Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLower limb burns can significantly delay recovery of function. Measuring lower limb functional outcomes is challenging in the unique burn patient population and necessitates the use of reliable and valid tools. The aims of this study were to examine the test-retest reliability, sensitivity, and internal consistency of Sections 1 and 3 of the Lower Limb Functional Index-10 (LLFI-10) questionnaire for measuring functional ability in patients with lower limb burns over time.

methodsTwenty-nine adult patients who had sustained a lower limb burn injury in the previous 12 months completed the test-retest procedure of the study. In addition, the minimal detectable change (MDC) was calculated for Section 1 and 3 of the LLFI-10. Section 1 is focused on the activity limitations experienced by patients with a lower limb disorder whereas Section 3 involves patients indicating their current percentage of pre-injury duties.

resultsSection 1 of the LLFI-10 demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.98, 95 % CI 0.96-0.99) whilst Section 3 demonstrated high test-retest reliability (ICC 0.88, 95 % CI 0.79-0.94). MDC scores for Sections 1 and 3 were 1.27 points and 30.22 %, respectively. Internal consistency was demonstrated with a significant negative association (r s = -0.83) between Sections 1 and 3 of the LLFI-10 (p < 0.001).

conclusionsThis study demonstrates that Section 1 and 3 of the LLFI-10 are reliable for measuring functional ability in patients who have sustained lower limb burns in the previous 12 months, and furthermore, Section 1 is sensitive to changes in patient function over time.

Indexed as

BurnInternal consistencyLower limb functionMinimal detectable changeOutcome measureQuestionnaire

Identifiers

PMID27574686

DOI10.1186/s41038-016-0043-y

PMCPMC4964082

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.