ArticlePediatric physical therapy : the official publication of the Section on Pediatrics of the American Physical Therapy Association2026
Responsiveness of the "PROM Pediatric Physical Therapy" in Dutch Pediatric Physical Therapy Practices.
Article in Pediatric physical therapy : the official publication of the Section on Pediatrics of the American Physical Therapy Association, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the responsiveness of the patient-reported outcome measure pediatric physical therapy (PROM-ppt), a questionnaire used to also stimulate shared decision making in Dutch pediatric physical therapy practices.
methodsChildren completed the PROM-ppt at intake and 3 months after intervention or post-intervention. Reported problems were categorized as motor or pain related goals for intervention. Responsiveness was examined to test the a priori hypotheses and area under the curve (AUC). The Global Perceived Effect scale was used for comparison.
resultsOverall, the hypotheses were confirmed in 60% of the cases with adequate AUCs. In children with motor problems, 80% of the hypotheses were matched, with adequate AUCs. In children with pain related problems, 40% of the hypotheses were matched, with inadequate AUCs.
conclusionThe PROM-ppt had moderate responsiveness in the pediatric population, good responsiveness in children with interventions for motor problems, and poor responsiveness to pain related problems.
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.