ArticlePhysiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy2026
Exploring Current Procedural Terminology Codes for Physical Therapist Evaluations in the United States: Results of a Feasibility Study.
Article in Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposePhysical therapy evaluation Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes have been in practice for 8 years in the United States with limited understanding of their accuracy, reliability, and utilization. This creates challenges for physical therapists (PT) to justify their services and demonstrate their impact on patient outcomes, while also hindering systematic international comparisons with other physical therapy coding systems. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of assessing evaluation CPT code metrics in outpatient physical therapy and to determine preliminary accuracy and reliability of these codes.
methodsOutpatient PTs from an academic health care institution were recruited to review 15 patient evaluations and select the CPT code they deemed most appropriate at baseline and again for the same cases 1-2 weeks later. Gold standard answers were created by expert consensus based on national guidelines to calculate accuracy for each case. Krippendorff's alpha was used to assess inter- and intra-rater reliability.
resultsThe study was successful in recruiting and retaining 20 PTs (median age: 34 years [IQR 29, 37], median experience: 7 years [IQR 3, 12]). Regarding preliminary results, participants were 49% accurate in choosing the correct CPT code, had poor inter-rater reliability (α = 0.58 [95% CI 0.55-0.61]) and moderate intra-rater reliability (α = 0.67 [95% CI 0.58-0.75]). DISCUSSION: Assessing the reliability and accuracy of PTs' determination of evaluation CPT codes is feasible; a larger multisite study is recommended to generalize results. There was a broad range of variability in evaluation CPT coding relative to what is deemed accurate. Refining coding reliability and accuracy within the U.S. system may enable meaningful international comparisons of coding and reimbursement frameworks, supporting the identification of strengths, gaps, and best-practice models to advance high-value physical therapy services globally.
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.