ArticleBMJ open2026
Methodologies used in the development of the international classification of functioning, disability and health core sets: a systematic scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo systematically examine the methodologies used in the development of International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Core Sets (CSs) across all developmental phases, and to identify methodological variation in stakeholder involvement, geographical representation, consensus procedures and validation approaches to inform the future development of ICF CSs.
designScoping review conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and Joanna Briggs Institute methodological guidance.
settingLiterature published between January 2001 and July 2024. Publications were identified through PubMed, supplemented by reference list screening and author contact where necessary.
participantsWe identified 170 relevant publications related to the development, validation and implementation, covering 34 CS across diverse health conditions. Eligible publications comprised preparatory studies (eg, systematic reviews, patient perspective studies, expert surveys), protocol/discussion papers, consensus conference reports, validation and implementation studies.
resultsMost publications originated from Europe. The comprehensive CS averaged 97 ICF categories (SD 29) and the brief CS 26 (SD 12). In 38% of the studies, the focus was only on validity research. Variations were observed in patient and expert involvement during development. Considerable variation was observed in stakeholder involvement, geographical representation, consensus procedures and validation approaches across developmental phases.
conclusionThis review demonstrates substantial methodological diversity in ICF CS development across the different phases. While the developmental framework proposed by Selb
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.