ArticleScientific reports2024
The reliability and validity of a novel clinical tool for distributing rehabilitation patients: a multicenter cross-sectional study in China.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Comparison of the clinicians' and experts' assessments of rehabilitation service needs for patients in the middle of China.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of triage performance among DRP tool, ChatGPT, and outpatient rehabilitation doctors.Scientific reports · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the reliability and validity of a novel clinical tool for distributing rehabilitation patients (DRP) for measuring a population of rehabilitation patients based on first-hand data from the field survey in China. A multi-stage sampling scheme was used to select 2512 rehabilitation outpatients from 21 medical institutions in seven cities in China. The evaluation indicators of the DRP tool consisted of five clinical indexes on multiple dysfunctions, self-care ability, vital signs, disease status, and disease course. The evaluation of rehabilitation ways of the DRP tool mainly included outpatient rehabilitation treatment, admission to primary healthcare, admission to secondary hospitals, and admission to tertiary hospitals. The mean age of participants was 54.22 years (SD:17.91), and nearly half (48.68%) were male. The majority (70.15%) were diagnosed with orthopaedic disorders. The Cronbach's alpha (0.66), the Kendall test (Kendall coefficient = 0.86; P < 0.001), and the Kappa test (Kappa = 0.83; Agreement: 90.48%; P < 0.001) reflected acceptable consistency reliability for the indexes on multiple dysfunctions, self-care ability, vital signs, disease status, and disease course in DRP tool. The modified confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) showed the indexes of multiple dysfunctions (β = 0.31; 95%CI = 0.20-0.43), self-care ability (β = 0.99; 95%CI = 0.65-1.33), disease status (β = 0.11; 95%CI = 0.06-0.16), disease course (β = 0.15; 95%CI = 0.09-0.21), and vital signs (β = 0.15; 95%CI = 0.08-0.21) had significantly factor loadings on the rehabilitation ways. The modified CFA exhibited a satisfactory model fit (RMSEA = 0.03; CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.95; SRMR = 0.01; AIC = 8268.51; BIC = 8373.43). This is the first study to develop a DRP tool using a relatively large sample from seven cities in China. The DRP tool had acceptable reliability and validity in measuring the rehabilitation ways of patients. Our findings provide a starting point for developing a practical tool in rehabilitation clinical practices and could provide advice on building more effective strategies and tools for other low-and middle-income countries that struggle with integrated healthcare.
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.