Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 594

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Refinements of the ICF Linking Rules to strengthen their potential for establishing comparability of health information

Cieza, Alarcos, Fayed, Nora, Bickenbach, Jerome, Prodinger, Birgit·2019·Disability and Rehabilitation

Abstract

Purpose The content of and methods for collecting health information often vary across settings and challenge the comparability of health information across time, individuals or populations. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) contains an exhaustive set of categories of information which constitutes a unified and consistent language of human functioning suitable as a reference for comparing health information. Methods and results In two earlier papers, we have proposed rules for linking existing health information to the ICF. Further refinements to these existing ICF Linking Rules are presented in this paper to enhance the transparency of the linking process. The refinements involve preparing information for linking, perspectives from which information is collected and the categorization of response options. Issues regarding the linking of information not covered or unspecified within the ICF are also revisited in this paper. Conclusion: The ICF Linking Rules are valuable for enhancing comparability of health information to ensure that information is available in a consistent manner to serve as a foundation for evidence-based decision-making across all levels of health systems. The refinements presented in this paper enhance transparency in, and ultimately reliability of the process of, linking health information to the ICF. Implications for Rehabilitation The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) constitutes a unified and consistent language of human functioning suitable as a reference for comparing health information. Comparability of information is essential to ensure that the widest range of information is available in a consistent manner for any decision-maker at all levels of the health system. The refined ICF Linking Rules presented in this article outline the method to establish comparability of health information based on the ICF.

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 · 10.3109/09638288.2016.1145258

Cites

28 of 28 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 28 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. WHO, 2013, WHO quality of life
  2. van Buuren S, 2005, J Off Stat, 21, 53
  3. 10.1080/09638280400014071 · doi:10.1080/09638280400014071
  4. 10.1080/16501960410015443 · doi:10.1080/16501960410015443
  5. 10.1177/000841740707405S06 · doi:10.1177/000841740707405s06
  6. 10.1179/2056607715Y.0000000003 · doi:10.1179/2056607715y.0000000003
  7. WHO, 2013, WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS2.0)

Cited by

See all 594

Metadata

Authors
Cieza, A., Fayed, N., Bickenbach, J., & Prodinger, B.
Venue
Disability and Rehabilitation
Published
2016-03-17
Volume
41
Issue
5
Pages
574-583
ISSN
  • 0963-8288 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5165
OpenAlex
W2325492974
Cited by
594
References
28
FWCI
55.88
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: Refinements of the ICF Linking Rules to strengthen their potential for establishing comparability of health information. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3109/09638288.2016.1145258
The paper
Cieza, A., Fayed, N., Bickenbach, J., & Prodinger, B. (2019). Refinements of the ICF Linking Rules to strengthen their potential for establishing comparability of health information. Disability and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2016.1145258

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.