ArticleDisability and rehabilitation2017
The Burn Model Systems outcome measures: a content analysis using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health.
Article in Disability and rehabilitation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing a Delphi-Based Comprehensive Core Set from the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health Framework for the Rehabilitation of Patients with Burn Injuries.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Mortality prognostication scores do not predict long-term, health-related quality of life after burn: A burn model system national database study.Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) Burn Injury Model Systems (BMS) is a nationwide database that uses patient-reported outcome measures to collect data. Though the outcome measures demonstrate good psychometric properties, the question remains whether or not these measures collect data that encompass the entire experience of burn patients over time.
methodsEach meaningful concept included in the BMS assessments was linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in order to classify and describe the content of each measure. The linking was completed by two experienced coders. The perspective of each assessment was also determined.
resultsThe body function component was most frequently addressed overall followed by the activities and participation component. The component body structures and environmental factors are not extensively covered in the BMS assessments. ICF chapter and category distribution varied greatly between assessments. The assessments were of the health status perspective.
conclusionThis study suggests a need to revisit the item composition of the BMS assessments to more evenly distribute ICF topics and subtopics that are pertinent to burn injury which will ensure a broader but more precise understanding of burn injury recovery. Implications for Rehabilitation A better understanding of the data collected through the Burn Model Systems (BMS) project may contribute to improve data collection tools and ultimately lead to clinical practice innovations and improvements. Clinicians interested in using BMS data for research purposes can better understand what topics are included and excluded in the collection and what perspectives are addressed. This study highlights the need for burn clinicians around the world to lend their expertise to the WHO for the development of a much needed burn injury International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Core Set.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.