ArticleZeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie2025
[Operationalization of the determination of the Barthel index using Barthel plus].
Article in Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Association between the different basic activities of daily living on the Barthel index and community living, use of mobility aids, and the survival at 5 years.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Barthel Index is the most commonly used instrument for assessing basic self-care ability; however, it only records impairments first at the stage of needing personal support.
objectiveBased on the long version of the Hamburg Classification Manual (HEMB-L), the Barthel plus (Bplus) was developed in consultation with specialist nursing personnel as an operationalization that also depicts compensated impairments via point-neutral subscaling. The article presents the instrument and its quality characteristics. MATERIAL AND
methodsFor patients in acute geriatric care the Bplus was employed twice at an interval of more than 1 week and audio recordings were made. The Bplus was assessed by telephone 1, 12, 24 and 36 months after discharge. The effect size (Cohen's d) was calculated for the sensitivity to change during the inpatient course. The interrater reliability and agreement with the HEMB‑L were determined taking the evaluation of the audio files by blinded examiners into account.
resultsBetween 29 April 2019 and 25 June 2021 a total of 124 patients were included in the study. The Barthel Index scores obtained using the Bplus and HEMB‑L did not show a significant difference. The interrater reliability, internal consistency and change sensitivity of the Bplus were high, each at > 0.9. For activities performed independently but with impairment, there was an increased risk of care dependency occurring over the course of the study.
conclusionWhile maintaining the same sum score as the HEMB‑L, the Bplus can highlight abilities prone to a high risk for loss of independence and thus facilitate the prevention of progressive care dependency.
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.