ArticlePhysical therapy2025
The Case for Aggregated Rehabilitation-Relevant Data Across Health Care Systems and Settings.
Article in Physical therapy, 2025. 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.
- The Digital Transformation of Rehabilitation Medicine: A Narrative Review of Artificial Intelligence Innovations, Clinical Integration, and Future Paradigms.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Review
- Implementation of a gait and balance battery of outcome measures in an inpatient rehabilitation hospital.Physical therapy · 2026Article
- Digitizing rehabilitation outcomes and assessing data quality in clinical trials: implementing validated scales in REDCap for a stroke RCT.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Collaborative AI for precision neurorehabilitation: a roadmap.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Health care value, quantified as outcome per unit cost, requires knowing which outcomes are influenced by which intervention at what cost. The value of rehabilitation is still largely unknown. Much of the reason for this limited evidence is historically poor standardization and collection of rehabilitation interventions, and objectively measured outcomes across care settings, care providers, and health care systems. The purposeful standardization and aggregation of rehabilitation-relevant data about interventions, cost, and outcomes from routine clinical practices offers potential to understand and improve the value of rehabilitation. This perspective details the critical need for rehabilitation-relevant data that are aggregated across settings, providers, and systems and proposes 3 options to meet this need, including (1) integrating rehabilitation-relevant data into existing research registry databases that are condition specific, (2) adding rehabilitation-relevant data to federally funded research networks, and (3) creating a novel rehabilitation registry database. There must be continued pursuit of discovering which rehabilitation interventions achieve which specific outcomes, in which settings, for which patients, and at what costs. Successfully aggregating rehabilitation-relevant data is critical for generating evidence that answers these key questions about the value of rehabilitation.
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.