ReviewBMJ open2022
Development and appropriateness of a scoring method for International Classification of Functioning, Disabilities, and Health assessment in older patients with heart failure: a Delphi survey of expert panel in Japan.
Review in BMJ open, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of an ICF-Based Core Assessment Set for Psychiatric Occupational Therapy in Japan: A Three-Round Delphi Study.Occupational therapy international · 2026Article
- Establishing Standard Categories of Rehabilitation Approaches in Long-term Care: A Delphi Consensus Study.Progress in rehabilitation medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe number of older patients with heart failure (HF) is increasing in Japan and has become a social problem. There is an urgent need to develop a comprehensive assessment methodology based on the common language of healthcare; the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). The purpose of this study was to develop and confirm the appropriateness of a scoring methodology for 43 ICF categories in older people with HF.
designCross-sectional survey. We applied the RAND/University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method with a modified Delphi method. SETTING AND
participantsWe included a panel of 26 multidisciplinary experts on HF care consisting of home physicians, cardiovascular physicians, care managers, nurses, physical therapists, a pharmacist, occupational therapist, nutritionist and a social worker. MEASURES: We conducted a literature review of ICF linking rules and developed a questionnaire on scoring methods linked to ICF categories in older people with HF. In the Delphi rounds, we sent the expert panel a questionnaire consisting of three questions for each of the 43 ICF categories. The expert panel responded to the questionnaire items on a 1 (very inappropriate) - 9 (very appropriate) Likert scale and repeated rounds until a consensus of 'Appropriate' and 'Agreement' was reached on all items.
resultsA total of 21 panel members responded to all the Delphi rounds. In the first Delphi round, six question items in four ICF categories did not reach a consensus of 'Agreement', but the result of our modifications based on panel members' suggestions reached to a consensus of 'Appropriate' and 'Agreement' on all questions in the second Delphi round.
conclusionThe ICF-based scoring method for older people with HF developed in this study was found to be appropriate. Future work is needed to clarify whether comprehensive assessment and information sharing based on ICF contributes to preventing readmissions.
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.