ArticleClinical and public health guidelines2026
Planning a Clinical Practice Guideline Revision for a Core Set of Outcome Measures in Adults Undergoing Neurologic Physical Therapy, Part 1: Assessing Dissemination and Scholarly Uptake.
Article in Clinical and public health guidelines, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) facilitate evidence-based decision-making and standardising care, yet their dissemination and scholarly uptake vary widely. The Core Set of Outcome Measures for Adults With Neurologic Conditions Undergoing Rehabilitation CPG (Core Set) has been broadly referenced within neurologic physical therapy. As the next revision approaches, understanding its scholarly influence, citation patterns, and published feedback is essential. This study evaluated the dissemination and use of the Core Set across the peer-reviewed literature and identified areas for refinement. Methods: A medical librarian conducted comprehensive searches of Web of Science, CINAHL, and Scopus to identify peer-reviewed English-language articles citing the Core Set between July 1, 2018, and July 31, 2024. Reviewer pairs screened articles and extracted publication characteristics, citation context using an adapted Rabin et al. and Field et al. framework, and narrative feedback. Quantitative data were summarised descriptively. Constructive and positive feedback were thematically coded. Altmetric Attention Score, PlumX captures, and Mendeley readership data characterised broader dissemination and engagement. Results: Of 388 records, 176 articles met inclusion criteria. Most articles cited the Core Set once ( Discussion: Findings support maintaining the Core Set's methodological rigour while providing some suggestions for improvement.
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.