Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30352584›Full record

Observational studyBMC health services research2018

Current use of measurement instruments by physiotherapists working in Germany: a cross-sectional online survey.

Tobias Braun, Alina Rieckmann, Franziska Weber, Christian Grüneberg

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Assessment of Rotator Cuff External Rotation: Isometric vs. Isotonic Testing Modes.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Tobias BraunHochschule für Gesundheit (University of Applied Sciences), Department of Applied Health Sciences, Division of Physiotherapy, Gesundheitscampus 6-8, 44801, Bochum, Germany. tobias.braun@hs-gesundheit.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8851-2574
Alina RieckmannHochschule für Gesundheit (University of Applied Sciences), Department of Applied Health Sciences, Division of Physiotherapy, Gesundheitscampus 6-8, 44801, Bochum, Germany.
Franziska WeberHochschule für Gesundheit (University of Applied Sciences), Department of Applied Health Sciences, Division of Physiotherapy, Gesundheitscampus 6-8, 44801, Bochum, Germany.
Christian GrünebergHochschule für Gesundheit (University of Applied Sciences), Department of Applied Health Sciences, Division of Physiotherapy, Gesundheitscampus 6-8, 44801, Bochum, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8870-8457

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of measurement instruments in physiotherapy has been recommended in clinical practice guidelines to improve evidence-based practice. The aims of the study were (a) to describe the current use of measurement instruments by physiotherapists working in Germany and (b) to investigate the facilitators and barriers to use measurement instruments.

methodsThis cross-sectional study used a nationwide online survey, which was accessible to all physiotherapists working in Germany.

resultsIn total, 522 adult physiotherapists working in Germany completed the questionnaire. The mean age of the respondents was 38 years, 63% were female, and 53% had >10 years of work experience. Thirty-one percent of the respondents used measurement instruments in ≥80% of their patients, and 26% used measurement instruments in ≤20%. Measurement instruments were used for diagnostic and prognostic purposes by 69% and 22% of respondents, respectively. The three most frequently reported measurement instruments were "goniometer" (n = 254), some kind of a "visual/numeric analogue scale" (n = 139), and the "manual examination of muscle-strength" (n = 54). Seven of the 13 most stated measurement instruments measure activities or participation. The most important facilitator was physiotherapists' positive attitudes towards measurement instruments. Two out of three respondents reported having sufficient knowledge and skills to apply measurement instruments in clinical practice. The most pronounced barriers were insufficient additional financial compensations and requiring extra time to document test scores. Seventy-eight percent of the respondents could imagine using an electronic device for a user-friendly patient health record system in clinical practice.

conclusionsThe limited use of measurement instruments reported by physiotherapists working in Germany appears to be due to organisational issues, in combination with a lack of knowledge and skills needed to apply the measurement instruments, rather than due to individual or managerial reasons. To support the use of measurement instruments, sufficient time resources and adequate financial compensation are required. Educational approaches should focus on imparting patient-centred and patient-reported outcomes to quantify activities and participation. Electronic patient health record systems have potential to facilitate the application of standardised measurement instruments if the barriers identified in this survey are addressed properly.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesEvidence-Based PracticeFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhysical ExaminationPhysical TherapistsPhysical Therapy ModalitiesProfessional PracticeSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultCross-sectional surveyEvidence-based practiceMeasurement instrumentOutcome measurementPhysical therapyPhysiotherapyRehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID30352584
PMCPMC6199696

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.