Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 190

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Physical Function Test for Use in the Intensive Care Unit: Validity, Responsiveness, and Predictive Utility of the Physical Function ICU Test (Scored)

Denehy, Linda, de Morton, Natalie A., Skinner, Elizabeth H., Edbrooke, Lara, Haines, Kimberley, Warrillow, Stephen, Berney, Sue·2013·Physical Therapy
DOI 10.2522/ptj.20120310
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Several tests have recently been developed to measure changes in patient strength and functional outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU). The original Physical Function ICU Test (PFIT) demonstrates reliability and sensitivity. Objective: The aims of this study were to further develop the original PFIT, to derive an interval score (the PFIT-s), and to test the clinimetric properties of the PFIT-s. Design: A nested cohort study was conducted. Methods: One hundred forty-four and 116 participants performed the PFIT at ICU admission and discharge, respectively. Original test components were modified using principal component analysis. Rasch analysis examined the unidimensionality of the PFIT, and an interval score was derived. Correlations tested validity, and multiple regression analyses investigated predictive ability. Responsiveness was assessed using the effect size index (ESI), and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated. Results: The shoulder lift component was removed. Unidimensionality of combined admission and discharge PFIT-s scores was confirmed. The PFIT-s displayed moderate convergent validity with the Timed “Up & Go” Test (r=−.60), the Six-Minute Walk Test (r=.41), and the Medical Research Council (MRC) sum score (rho=.49). The ESI of the PFIT-s was 0.82, and the MCID was 1.5 points (interval scale range=0–10). A higher admission PFIT-s score was predictive of: an MRC score of ≥48, increased likelihood of discharge home, reduced likelihood of discharge to inpatient rehabilitation, and reduced acute care hospital length of stay. Limitations: Scoring of sit-to-stand assistance required is subjective, and cadence cutpoints used may not be generalizable. Conclusions: The PFIT-s is a safe and inexpensive test of physical function with high clinical utility. It is valid, responsive to change, and predictive of key outcomes. It is recommended that the PFIT-s be adopted to test physical function in the ICU.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2522/ptj.20120310

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Morris, 2008, Early intensive care unit mobility therapy in the treatment of acute respiratory failure, Crit Care Med, 36, 2238, 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318180b90e · DOI · Paper page
  2. Schweickert, 2009, Early physical and occupational therapy in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a randomised controlled trial, Lancet, 373, 1874, 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60658-9 · DOI · Paper page
  3. DiCicco, 2010, University of Rochester Acute Care Evaluation: development of a new functional outcome measure for the acute care setting, J Acute Care Phys Ther, 1, 14, 10.1097/01592394-201001010-00002 · DOI
  4. Skinner, 2009, Development of a physical function outcome measure (PFIT) and a pilot exercise training protocol for use in intensive care, Crit Care Resusc, 11, 110
  5. Zanni, 2009, Rehabilitation therapy and outcomes in acute respiratory failure: an observational pilot project, J Crit Care, 25, 254, 10.1016/j.jcrc.2009.10.010 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Thrush, 2012, The clinical utility of the Functional Status Score for the Intensive Care Unit (FSS-ICU) at a long-term acute care hospital: a prospective cohort study, Phys Ther, 92, 1536, 10.2522/ptj.20110412 · DOI
  7. Portney, 2009, Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice
  8. Denehy, 2008, Evaluation of exercise rehabilitation for survivors of intensive care: protocol for a single blind randomised controlled trial, Open Crit Care Med J, 1, 39, 10.2174/1874828700801010039 · DOI
  9. Linacre, 1994, Sample size and item calibration stability, Rasch Measurement Transactions, 7, 328
  10. De Jonghe, 2002, Paresis acquired in the intensive care unit: a prospective multicenter study, JAMA, 288, 2859, 10.1001/jama.288.22.2859 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Borg, 1982, Ratings of perceived exertion and heart rates during short-term cycle exercise and their use in a new cycling strength test, Int J Sports Med, 3, 153, 10.1055/s-2008-1026080 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Hough, 2011, Manual muscle strength testing of critically ill patients: feasibility and interobserver agreement, Crit Care, 15, R43, 10.1186/cc10005 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Hermans, 2012, Interobserver agreement of Medical Research Council sum-score and handgrip strength in the intensive care unit, Muscle Nerve, 45, 18, 10.1002/mus.22219 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Cahalin, 1995, The relationship of the 6-min walk test to maximal oxygen consumption in transplant candidates with end-stage lung disease, Chest, 108, 452, 10.1378/chest.108.2.452 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Jenkins, 2007, 6-Minute Walk Test in patients with COPD: clinical applications in pulmonary rehabilitation, Physiotherapy, 93, 175, 10.1016/j.physio.2007.02.001 · DOI
  16. Ware, 1993, SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide
  17. Chrispin, 1997, Short Form 36 in the intensive care unit: assessment of acceptability, reliability and validity of the questionnaire, Anaesthesia, 52, 15, 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1997.015-az014.x · DOI · Paper page
  18. Black, 2001, Review of outcome measures used in adult critical care, Crit Care Med, 29, 2119, 10.1097/00003246-200111000-00012 · DOI
  19. Hawthorne, 1999, The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of health related quality of life, Qual Life Res, 8, 209, 10.1023/A:1008815005736 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Tennant, 2006, Unidimensionality matters! (A tale of two Smiths?), Rasch Measurement Transactions, 20, 1048
  21. Bond, 2001, Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences, 10.4324/9781410600127 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Miller, 2010, Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the upper limb subscales of the Motor Assessment Scale using a Rasch analysis model, J Rehabil Med, 42, 315, 10.2340/16501977-0519 · DOI
  23. Daniels, 1995, Muscle Testing: Techniques of Manual Examination
  24. Husted, 2000, Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations, J Clin Epidemiol, 53, 459, 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00206-1 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Hough, 2007, The role of future longitudinal studies in ICU survivors: understanding determinants and pathophysiology of weakness and neuromuscular dysfunction, Curr Opin Crit Care, 13, 489, 10.1097/MCC.0b013e3282efea3a · DOI
  26. Berney, 2012, Safety and feasibility of an exercise prescription approach to rehabilitation across the continuum of care for survivors of critical illness, Phys Ther, 92, 1524, 10.2522/ptj.20110406 · DOI
  27. Denehy, 2012, Strategies for post ICU rehabilitation, Curr Opin Crit Care, 18, 503, 10.1097/MCC.0b013e328357f064 · DOI
  28. Iwashyna, 2012, The burdens of survivorship: an approach to thinking about long-term outcomes after critical illness, Semin Respir Crit Care Med, 33, 327, 10.1055/s-0032-1321982 · DOI
  29. Stevens, 2009, A framework for diagnosing and classifying intensive care unit-acquired weakness, Crit Care Med, 37, S299, 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181b6ef67 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Fan, 2010, What is stopping us from early mobility in the intensive care unit?, Crit Care Med, 38, 2254, 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181f8477d · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181f8477d
  31. Herridge, 2007, Long-term outcomes after critical illness: past, present, future, Curr Opin Crit Care, 13, 407, 10.1097/MCC.0b013e3282eff3af · DOI
  32. Berney, 2012, An exercise prescription approach to rehabilitation for survivors of critical illness, Phys Ther, 92, 1524, 10.2522/ptj.20110406 · DOI
  33. Ferreira, 2009, Clinical importance of an intervention must reside with the patient, Aust J Physiother, 55, 219, 10.1016/S0004-9514(09)70092-3 · doi:10.1016/s0004-9514(09)70092-3
  34. Swartz, 2010, The king's foot of patient-reported outcomes: current practices and new developments for the measurement of change, Qual Life Res, 20, 1159, 10.1007/s11136-011-9863-1 · DOI
  35. Dolmage, 2011, Has my patient responded? Interpreting clinical measurements such as the 6-minute-walk-test, Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 184, 642, 10.1164/rccm.201103-0497CC · DOI

Cited by

See all 190

Metadata

Authors
Denehy, L., de Morton, N. A., Skinner, E. H., Edbrooke, L., Haines, K., Warrillow, S., & Berney, S.
Venue
Physical Therapy
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2013-12-01
Volume
93
Issue
12
Pages
1636-1645
ISSN
  • 0031-9023 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-6724
DOI
10.2522/ptj.20120310
OpenAlex
W2124976100
Cited by
190
References
6
FWCI
8.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Physical Function Test for Use in the Intensive Care Unit: Validity, Responsiveness, and Predictive Utility of the Physical Function ICU Test (Scored). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2522/ptj.20120310
The paper
Denehy, L., de Morton, N. A., Skinner, E. H., Edbrooke, L., Haines, K., Warrillow, S., & Berney, S. (2013). A Physical Function Test for Use in the Intensive Care Unit: Validity, Responsiveness, and Predictive Utility of the Physical Function ICU Test (Scored). Physical Therapy. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20120310

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.