MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2545717629 · doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1508-x

Surviving critical illness: what is next? An expert consensus statement on physical rehabilitation after hospital discharge

2016· article· en· W2545717629 on OpenAlexafffund
Mel Major, R. Kwakman, Michelle E. Kho, Bronwen Connolly, David McWilliams, Linda Denehy, Susan Hanekom, Shane Patman, Rik Gosselink, Christina Jones, Frans Nollet, Dale M. Needham, Raoul Engelbert, Marike van der Schaaf

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekCanada Research ChairsNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineCritical illnessStatement (logic)RehabilitationHospital dischargePatient dischargeIntensive care medicineMEDLINEMedical emergencyCritically illFamily medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The study objective was to obtain consensus on physical therapy (PT) in the rehabilitation of critical illness survivors after hospital discharge. Research questions were: what are PT goals, what are recommended measurement tools, and what constitutes an optimal PT intervention for survivors of critical illness? METHODS: A Delphi consensus study was conducted. Panelists were included based on relevant fields of expertise, years of clinical experience, and publication record. A literature review determined five themes, forming the basis for Delphi round one, which was aimed at generating ideas. Statements were drafted and ranked on a 5-point Likert scale in two additional rounds with the objective to reach consensus. Results were expressed as median and semi-interquartile range, with the consensus threshold set at ≤0.5. RESULTS: Ten internationally established researchers and clinicians participated in this Delphi panel, with a response rate of 80 %, 100 %, and 100 % across three rounds. Consensus was reached on 88.5 % of the statements, resulting in a framework for PT after hospital discharge. Essential handover information should include information on 15 parameters. A core set of outcomes should test exercise capacity, skeletal muscle strength, function in activities of daily living, mobility, quality of life, and pain. PT interventions should include functional exercises, circuit and endurance training, strengthening exercises for limb and respiratory muscles, education on recovery, and a nutritional component. Screening tools to identify impairments in other health domains and referral to specialists are proposed. CONCLUSIONS: A consensus-based framework for optimal PT after hospital discharge is proposed. Future research should focus on feasibility testing of this framework, developing risk stratification tools and validating core outcome measures for ICU survivors.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.249
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.202
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2490.202
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0060.013
Research integrity0.0130.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations139
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207