Physical Rehabilitation of the Critically Ill Trauma Patient in the ICU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To 1) review the existing evidence for early mobilization of the critically ill patients in the ICU with polytrauma; 2) provide intensivists with an introduction to the biomechanics, physiology, and nomenclature of injuries; 3) summarize the evidence for early mobilization in each anatomic area; and 4) provide recommendations for the mobilization of these patients. DATA SOURCES: A literature search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for articles published in English between 1980 and 2011. STUDY SELECTION: Studies pertaining to physical therapy and rehabilitation in trauma patients were selected. Articles were excluded if they dealt with pediatrics, geriatrics, burn injuries, isolated hand injuries, chronic (i.e., not acute) injuries, nontraumatic conditions, and pressure/decubitus ulcers, were in a language other than English, were published only in abstract form, were letters to the editor, were case reports, or were published prior to 1980. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers extracted data and summarized results according to anatomical areas. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 1,411 titles and abstracts, 103 met inclusion criteria. We found no articles specifically addressing the rehabilitation of polytrauma patients in the ICU setting or patients with polytrauma in general. We summarized the articles addressing the role of mobilization for specific injuries and treatments. We used this evidence, in combination with biologic rationale and physician and surgeon experience and expertise, to summarize the important considerations when providing physical therapy to these patients in the ICU setting. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of evidence addressing the role of early mobilization of ICU patients with polytrauma and patients with polytrauma in general. Evidence for the beneficial role of early mobilization of specific injuries exists. Important considerations when applying a strategy of early physical therapy and mobilization to this distinctive patient group are summarized.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".