SynthesisFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2026
Functional capacity evaluations in medico-legal contexts: a scoping review of best practices, limitations, and areas for improvement.
Synthesis in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 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
Introduction: Functional Capacity Evaluations (FCEs) are commonly used to assess individuals' capacities in relation to work demands, with growing application in medico-legal contexts. Despite their broad use, various concerns persist regarding their administration, interpretation, and application within this setting. Objectives: This scoping review synthesized evidence on best practices, limitations, and areas for improvement and innovation in the medico-legal use of FCEs. Methods: The review followed standard methodological frameworks for scoping reviews and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, searching six major databases for peer-reviewed articles published between 1990 and 2026. Studies were included if they addressed the use of FCEs in return-to-work, insurance, disability assessment, or legal contexts. Data were extracted using a standardized form and synthesized thematically across three domains: best practices, key limitations, and improvement opportunities. Results: Fifty-one articles were included. Best practices emphasized standardization and psychometrics, effort monitoring, psychosocial integration, job-specific relevance, practical feasibility, and clear reporting. Limitations included inconsistent protocols, limited validation, insufficient psychosocial integration, and concerns regarding bias and legal defensibility. Recommendations emphasized the development of modular, job-specific, and resource-sensitive protocols; stronger psychometric validation; improved evaluator training; and the establishment of interdisciplinary reporting standards aligned with international frameworks. Conclusions: FCEs hold promise in medico-legal contexts, but variability and limited psychosocial integration undermine their defensibility. Progress requires both technical refinements, including standardized, validated protocols, and a shift toward biopsychosocial, person-centered approaches that reflect real work ability. Systematic Review Registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/TYEKR.
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.