ArticleRheumatology advances in practice2020
Linking the patient experience of foot involvement related to psoriatic arthritis to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.
Article in Rheumatology advances in practice, 2020. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Disabling foot pain and its impact on daily living among people with psoriatic arthritis in Singapore: a cross-sectional observational investigation.BMC rheumatology · 2024Article
- Development of a national survey on foot involvement among people with psoriatic arthritis in Australia using a best practice approach: a survey development protocol.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2020Observational
- Linking the effect of psoriatic arthritis-related foot involvement to the Leeds Foot Impact Scale using the International Classification for Functioning, Disability and Health: a study to assess content validity.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2020Article
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 at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim was to categorize the patient experience of PsA-related foot involvement by linking it to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework.
methodsConcepts, obtained from a previous qualitative investigation of people with PsA and health professionals into their perspective of PsA-related foot involvement, were linked to the full version of the ICF classification. Concepts were linked to the most appropriate ICF category using established linking rules, which enable a systematic and standardized linking process. All concepts were linked independently to the ICF by two investigators, followed by a third investigator for adjudication. The professional backgrounds of the investigators included occupational therapy and podiatry.
resultsMore than 100 distinct ICF categories were linked to the interview concepts. The most represented ICF category was body functions (35%), followed by environmental factors (31%), activities and participation (19%) and body structure (15%). Concepts that could not be linked to the ICF were related to coping, aspects of time and knowledge. Health professionals identified a greater proportion of body functions and fewer activity and participation categories compared with patients, indicating a possible mismatch of key concerns. Interdisciplinary group analysis demonstrated merit.
conclusionA list of ICF categories was generated, defining aspects of functioning important and relevant to the impact of PsA-related foot involvement. Despite the localized anatomical focus of this study, the effect of foot problems in PsA was linked to all components of the ICF, confirming the profound impact on functioning and daily life.
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.