Psychological and Psychiatric Outcomes Following PICU Admission: A Systematic Review of Cohort Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Admissions to PICU places pediatric patients at increased risk of persistent psychological and psychiatric morbidity. This systematic review aimed to summarize and critically examine literature regarding psychological and psychiatric outcomes of pediatric patients following PICU admission. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, PsycInfo, CINAHL, LILACS, and SciELO were searched up to May 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Cohort studies about psychological and psychiatric outcomes of pediatric patients following PICU admission; full-text records published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese in peer-reviewed journals from 2000 to 2015 were included. Neonatal patient population (age, <1 mo), follow-up after PICU discharge (<3 mo), and nonprimary literature were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened studies based on the predetermined exclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted using an adapted tool. The internal validity and risk of bias were assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. DATA SYNTHESIS: The search yielded 1,825 studies after the removal of duplications, of which eight met the inclusion criteria. Methodologic quality of the studies ranged from low to high, with an average score of five of nine. Of all the studies, half had a control group. Regarding the length of follow-up, most of the studies ranged from 3 to 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological and psychiatric outcomes after pediatric critical illness appear to be substantial issues that need to be further studied. Our review highlights the need for psychological screening of pediatric patients and their parents following PICU admission since these patients are a vulnerable population at risk for developing psychiatric responses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".