ArticleCureus2025
Reliability and Validity of the Revised Version of the Ability for Basic Movement Scale in Chronic Hospitalized Patients: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Relationship Between the Revised Version of the Ability for Basic Movement Scale and Motor Functional Independence Measure Scores and Gain.Japanese journal of comprehensive rehabilitation science · 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
Background and purpose To investigate the usefulness of the revised Ability for Basic Movement Scale (ABMS II) for chronic-phase hospitalized patients, whether admitted owing to illness or injury. Methods A retrospective cohort of 176 consecutively admitted chronic care inpatients who underwent rehabilitation therapy between April 2021 and March 2023 was analyzed. Patients who died during admission, who were discharged within one month, or who had insufficient clinical data were excluded. Information on sex, age, residence before admission, and underlying diseases requiring physical rehabilitation therapy was collected. Daily living abilities were measured using the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and Barthel Index (BI) scores during admission. Basic movement abilities were evaluated by two physical therapists using the ABMS II. The inter-rater reliability of ABMS II scores between therapists was analyzed using the weighted kappa coefficient. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the validity of ABMS II and its correlation with FIM/BI scores. This retrospective study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Hikari Hospital (Approval No. HH‑2024‑01). Results and discussion The cohort had a mean age of 84.8 ± 7.3 years, 56% were female, and baseline mean (SD) scores were 18.6 ± 7.6 for ABMS II, 53.8 ± 22.9 for FIM‑total, and 35.0 ± 26.7 for BI. The ABMS II showed excellent agreement (weighted kappa = 0.996; 95% confidence interval: 0.993-0.999) and strong positive correlations (0.743-0.819) with total FIM/BI scores. Conclusions The ABMS Ⅱ is useful for evaluating basic movement abilities in patients with chronic illnesses.
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.