ArticleRehabilitation process and outcome2022
A Proposal for Expansion of the Medical Specialty of Rehabilitation Medicine.
Article in Rehabilitation process and outcome, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Render to physiatrist the things that are physiatrist's. In Italy, the Supreme Court confirms that physiotherapy without medical diagnosis is unlawful practice of medicine: what about the rest of Europe?European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2025Article
- Adaptive sports in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine across Europe: the forgotten therapeutic ally.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2025Article
- Before choosing a uniform name for the PMR specialty, we must define the specialty.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2023Article
- The Evolution of the British Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine.Advances in rehabilitation science and practiceArticle
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 14 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The workforce of the medical specialty of Rehabilitation Medicine (RM) in the UK is 10 times less than the European average for the specialty of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM). This can be explained partly by the difference in the scope of practice within the specialty between the UK and other European countries and USA. This opinion paper aims to compare the rehabilitation needs in chronic medical conditions and compare the scope of practice between countries within Europe and other regions of the world. The potential advantages of a broader remit specialty to improve rehabilitation care for patients by involving rehabilitation physicians in various medical conditions is explored. Recommendations have been put forward in the Rehabilitation Medicine Expansion Proposal (RMEP), which is likely to make the medical specialty of RM/ PRM more satisfying for the doctors working in the specialty and a more attractive career choice for those entering training in the specialty. There is a need for an international universal framework for the scope of the specialty to have a greater impact on improving the lives of those with chronic medical conditions.
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.