ArticleSpinal cord2019
Content comparison of the Spinal Cord Injury Model System Database to the ICF Generic Sets and Core Sets for spinal cord injury.
Article in Spinal cord, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Overview of Available Functioning Data in Switzerland: Supporting the Use of Functioning as a Health Indicator Alongside Mortality and Morbidity.International journal of public health · 2024Article
- The Reliability and Validity of the Brief ICF Core Set in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designMapping of the National Spinal Cord Injury Model System (SCIMS) Database (NSCID) to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).
objectivesTo link the content of the latest two versions of the NSCID to the ICF; more specifically (1) to compare the content of the current NSCID 2016-2021 version to its predecessor (NSCID 2011-2016) using the ICF as a neutral reference framework, and (2) to compare the content contained in the NSCID 2016-2021 version with relevant ICF Sets.
settingThe forms of the NSCID 2016-2021 and 2011-2016 versions were linked to the ICF and contrasted. Comparability of the current version of the NSCID with the ICF Core Set for Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) in the post-acute and long-term context and the two generic ICF sets- ICF Generic-7 and ICF Generic-30 was then examined.
methodsICF Linking Rules and descriptive statistics.
resultsThe current NSCID 2016-2021 version covers functioning as classified in the ICF with 8 ICF categories more comprehensively than its predecessor does. More than 50% of ICF categories contained in the two ICF Generic Sets were covered. The coverage of the brief ICF Core Sets for SCI by the NSCID 2016-2021 was more than 50%, but the coverage of the comprehensive core sets was low. Results showed the best coverage in the ICF component Activities and Participation.
conclusionsThis study emphasizes how the ICF and its Sets can serve as a reference framework to foster comparability of existing data sets from both clinical practice and research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31292520What 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.