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

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 ( n = 106), most frequently in the introduction ( n = 70) or methods ( n = 65). Thirty‐two percent ( n = 57) reported that the Core Set informed study design, guided outcome measure selection, or was implemented in practice. Studies represented 30 countries, with the United States contributing the largest proportion ( n = 104). Constructive feedback (14 articles) highlighted needs related to standardisation procedures, diagnosis‐specific applicability, construct coverage, and feasibility. Positive feedback (9 articles) emphasised methodological clarity, usability, and clinical value. Dissemination indicators demonstrated broad engagement, including an Altmetric Attention Score of 60, 261 scholarly citations, 643 PlumX captures, and 604 Mendeley readers. Discussion Findings support maintaining the Core Set's methodological rigour while providing some suggestions for improvement.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Clinical and Public Health Guidelines
Published
2026-09-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70086
Primary Topic
Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Marghuretta D. Bland, Jennifer L. Moore, Wendy Romney, Kirsten Potter et al.
Clinical and Public Health Guidelines
Clinical practice guidelines implementation
article

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

Marghuretta D. Bland, Jennifer L. Moore, Wendy Romney, Kirsten Potter, Elizabeth Anderl, Jane E. Sullivan, Zeynep Gulen Erkoc
article en

Abstract

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 ( n = 106), most frequently in the introduction ( n = 70) or methods ( n = 65). Thirty‐two percent ( n = 57) reported that the Core Set informed study design, guided outcome measure selection, or was implemented in practice. Studies represented 30 countries, with the United States contributing the largest proportion ( n = 104). Constructive feedback (14 articles) highlighted needs related to standardisation procedures, diagnosis‐specific applicability, construct coverage, and feasibility. Positive feedback (9 articles) emphasised methodological clarity, usability, and clinical value. Dissemination indicators demonstrated broad engagement, including an Altmetric Attention Score of 60, 261 scholarly citations, 643 PlumX captures, and 604 Mendeley readers. Discussion Findings support maintaining the Core Set's methodological rigour while providing some suggestions for improvement.

Clinical and Public Health GuidelinesVol. 3(4)
Northwestern University (US), Tufts University (US), Sacred Heart University (US), Memorial Hermann Institute for Rehabilitation and Research Foundation (US), Washington University in St. Louis (US), Sunnaas sykehus (NO), Nasjonalt Kunnskapssenter for Helsetjenesten (NO), Applied Physical Sciences (United States) (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Clinical practice guidelines implementation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.