We are missing more. An international measurable model of clinical reasoning using quality indicators and routinely collected data.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Associations between quality of health care and clinical outcomes in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a rehabilitation cohort study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022
   Article
2. Improved quality of physiotherapy care in patients with Whiplash-Associated Disorders: Results based on 16 years of routinely collected data.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2022
   Article
3. Psychological assessments by manual physiotherapists in the Netherlands in patients with nonspecific low back pain.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2021
   Article
4. Concept Analysis of Clinical Reasoning in Physical Therapist Practice.Physical therapy · 2020
   Article

Corrections and comments

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

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as