MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810925040 · doi:10.1093/ptj/pzy059

Physical Impairments Associated With Post–Intensive Care Syndrome: Systematic Review Based on the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Framework

2018· review· en· W2810925040 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patricia J. Ohtake, Alan C Lee, Jacqueline Coffey Scott, Rana S. Hinman, Carl R Hinkson, Dale M. Needham, Lori Shutter, Helene Smith-Gabai, Mary Catherine Spires, Alecia Thiele, Clareen Wiencek, James M. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAmerican Physical Therapy Association
KeywordsCINAHLInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthData extractionMEDLINEMedicineActivities of daily livingMeta-analysisHealth carePhysical therapyGerontologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatryPsychological interventionRehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) is a constellation of new or worsening impairments in physical, mental, or cognitive abilities or a combination of these in individuals who have survived critical illness requiring intensive care. Purpose: The 2 purposes of this systematic review were to identify the scope and magnitude of physical problems associated with PICS during the first year after critical illness and to use the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework to elucidate impairments of body functions and structures, activity limitations, and participation restrictions associated with PICS. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCO), Web of Science, and Embase were searched from inception until March 7, 2017. Study Selection: Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full text to independently determine study eligibility based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data Extraction: Study methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data describing study methods, design, and participant outcomes were extracted. Data Synthesis: Fifteen studies were eligible for review. Within the first year following critical illness, people who had received intensive care experienced impairments in all 3 domains of the ICF (body functions and structures, activity limitations, and participation restrictions). These impairments included decreased pulmonary function, reduced strength of respiratory and limb muscles, reduced 6-minute walk test distance, reduced ability to perform activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living, and reduced ability to return to driving and paid employment. Limitations: The inclusion of only 15 observational studies in this review may limit the generalizability of the findings. Conclusions: During the first year following critical illness, individuals with PICS experienced physical impairments in all 3 domains of the ICF.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.008
Bibliometrics0.0130.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.329 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations155
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical TherapySame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207