CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 35Health Sciences Research and EducationMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Generalizability: Linking Evidence to Practice

Kamper, Steven J.·2020·Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
DOI 10.2519/jospt.2020.0701
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The basic concept of generalizability is simple: the results of a study are generalizable when they can be applied (are useful for informing a clinical decision) to patients who present for care. Clinicians must make reasoned decisions about generalizability of research findings beyond a study population. This requires nuanced understanding of the condition that defines the population, the study intervention, and the patient. Ultimately, clinicians must decide the level of generalizability of a study and determine how to weight the information in arriving at a treatment decision. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(1):45–46. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.0701

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2519/jospt.2020.0701

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A strength of the study is the routine clinical care setting and use of data based on a systematic quality assessment register, leading to high generalizability and external validity.

    “A strength of the current study is the routine clinical care setting and the use of data based on a systematic quality assessment register. This leads to the study population being clinically representative of DBT-patients in outpatient settings and hence ensuring a high generalizability and external validity of the findings [46].”

    From Evaluation of dialectical behavior therapy for adolescents in routine clinical practice: a pre-post study (2024) · cites this paper as [46]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Kamper, S. J.
Corresponding author
Kamper, Steven J.
ORCID
Kamper, Steven J.
Venue
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
Publisher
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT)
Published
2020-01
Volume
50
Issue
1
Pages
45-46
ISSN
  • 0190-6011 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-1344
DOI
10.2519/jospt.2020.0701
OpenAlex
W2998608348
Cited by
35
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3
FWCI
2.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
generalizability, evidence-based practice, clinical decision-making, research outcomes, study population, patient-centered care, physiotherapy
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Humans, Research Design, Reproducibility of Results, Evidence-Based Medicine, Physical Therapy Specialty

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review