Rehabilitation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Before the pandemic, intensive care unit rehabilitation was common. However, for critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection, rehabilitation became secondary to lifesaving measures and managing scarce resources. OBJECTIVE: In this systematic review, we investigated the impact of rehabilitation for critically ill adults with COVID-19 infection on outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Five electronic databases from 2020 to 2024 were searched for this study. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomised studies of critically ill adults with COVID-19 infection receiving in-hospital rehabilitation interventions were included in this study. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers screened titles/abstracts and full texts. Intervention types were organised into 13 categories. We assessed completeness of study reporting using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines and intervention reporting using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template. For RCTs, we assessed risk of bias, conducted meta-analyses using random-effect models, and evaluated certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: There were 11 prespecified outcomes including physical function and resource utilisation. RESULTS: Sixty-eight studies (n = 50 observational, 8 RCTs, 4 experimental non-RCTs, and 6 other designs) enrolling 23,630 participants met inclusion criteria. Thirty-one reported interventions; mobility was the most common activity (74% of studies). Authors used 87 outcome measures at 57 reported time points. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology scores were adequate with >75% items reported. Mean Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template reporting for intervention (n = 45) was moderate (54% [23%]), and that for control groups (n = 11) was poor (48% [20%]). Risk of bias was low; very-low-certainty evidence showed that multidisciplinary functional and respiratory rehabilitation and bed cycling + tilt table may result in shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (2 RCTs, n = 116, intervention = 9.1 days, control = 11.7 days; standardised mean difference: 0.44 days [95% confidence interval: -0.81 to-0.07]) and shorter hospital length of stay (three RCTs, n = 116, intervention = 17.6-days, control = 26.2-days; standardised mean difference: 2 days [95% confidence interval: -4.22 to 0.04]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Based on very-low-certainty evidence, rehabilitation may lead to shorter mechanical ventilation duration and hospital length of stay. Substantial heterogeneity across interventions, outcomes, and time points limited evidence synthesis. This review may aid in planning future rehabilitation studies with critically ill patients and for future pandemics where rehabilitation will have an important role. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023340256.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,137 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».