ArticleBMJ open2026
PhyCARE reporting guidelines for physiotherapy case reports: a consensus-based development .
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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.
- Challenges in Sequential Antiresorptive Therapy After Long-Term Denosumab Discontinuation: A Case Report and Narrative Review of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- PhyCARE reporting guidelines for physiotherapy case reports: a consensus-based development .BMJ open · 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCase reports (CRs) are essential in physiotherapy, yet reporting remains heterogeneous and insufficiently standardised. The 2013 CAse REport (CARE) guideline improves transparency but lacks physiotherapy-specific detail. This study aimed to develop a consensus-driven extension of the CARE reporting guideline to support structured reporting of physiotherapy CRs, encompassing physiotherapy-specific assessments and interventions.
designAn e-Delphi consensus process study following the ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) guidelines.
settingOnline.
participantsForty-four international experts in physiotherapy practice, research and education, along with six core committee members.
methodsExperts objectively scored items for relevance (5-point Likert scale) and provided open-ended responses for each item of the drafts. Scores and responses were analysed to facilitate iterative refinement of the Physiotherapy CAse REport (PhyCARE) reporting guidelines. Consensus was predetermined at over 70% agreement.
resultsRound 1 had the majority of items achieving ≥70% agreement, except two items that did not meet the threshold were revised and replaced with an alternative. Five new items addressing physiotherapy-specific reporting needs were added, and 10 items were relocated. In round 2, all 35 items across 13 domains achieved 84%-100% agreement. The nomenclature of one domain was revised to 'Outcomes and Follow-up'. Following two e-Delphi rounds, consensus was achieved, and suggestions from online meeting, piloting led to item rephrasing, after which the PhyCARE guidelines were finalised.
conclusionThe PhyCARE guidelines have the potential to provide a physiotherapy-specific extension of CARE to support structured, transparent and reproducible reporting of physiotherapy CRs.
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.