ReviewFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2026
Exploring clinician-reported assessments of capacity and performance qualifiers in the ICF: a scoping review.
Review in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2026. 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.
- Functional Exercise Capacity and Exploratory ICF-Aligned Interpretation of the Incremental Shuttle Walk Test in Children With Asthma.Pediatric pulmonology · 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: The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) provides a standardized rating system called "qualifiers" to describe capacity and performance, reflecting what a person can do and what a person does, respectively, yet their clinician-reported use remains conceptually and methodologically unclear. Objective: To map and describe clinician-reported assessments linked to capacity and performance qualifiers, and to examine how these qualifiers have been operationalized in practice. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Systematic searches were performed in five bibliographic databases and grey literature sources from 2001 to August 2025. The protocol was registered prospectively on the Open Science Framework. Studies were included if they described clinician-reported assessments applying capacity and/or performance qualifiers in accordance with original ICF definitions. Results: Five studies met the inclusion criteria. Identified assessments were confined to a narrow range of Mobility categories, namely walking and use of the upper extremities. Most studies retrofitted existing clinical tests to qualifiers using heterogeneous approaches, including percentage-based thresholds, normative distributions, or clinically defined descriptors. Only one study developed an assessment specifically designed for qualifier use. Explicit differentiation between capacity and performance was rarely reported, and validation of qualifier thresholds was limited. Conclusions: Nearly a quarter of a century after the adoption of the ICF, clinician-reported use aligned with original ICF capacity and performance definitions remains limited, conceptually ambiguous, and methodologically inconsistent. Clearer conceptual definitions and internationally agreed, category-specific criteria are needed to enable meaningful, reliable, and comparable clinician-reported assessments of functioning.
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.