MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953187367 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026075

Does enhanced physical rehabilitation following intensive care unit discharge improve outcomes in patients who received mechanical ventilation? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2019· review· en· W2953187367 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shunsuke Taito, Kota Yamauchi, Yasushi Tsujimoto, Masahiro Banno, Hiraku Tsujimoto, Yuki Kataoka

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceDokuz Eylül ÜniversitesiChang Gung Medical FoundationUniversity of TorontoTaipei Medical UniversityChang Gung UniversityDirectorate for Biological SciencesQueen Margaret University
KeywordsMedicineMechanical ventilationRehabilitationIntensive care unitQuality of life (healthcare)Meta-analysisIntensive care medicinePhysical therapyVentilation (architecture)Emergency medicineNursingAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether enhanced physical rehabilitation following intensive care unit (ICU) discharge improves activities-of-daily-living function, quality of life (QOL) and mortality among patients who received mechanical ventilation in the ICU. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, PEDro and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform searched through January 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effect of post-ICU rehabilitation designed to either commence earlier and/or be more intensive than the protocol employed in the control group. Only adults who received mechanical ventilation for >24 hours were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Standard mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs were calculated for QOL, and pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs are provided for mortality. We assessed heterogeneity based on I² and the certainty of evidence based on the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Ten trials (enrolling 1110 patients) compared physical rehabilitation with usual care or no intervention after ICU discharge. Regarding QOL, the SMD (95% CI) between the intervention and control groups for the physical and mental component summary scores was 0.06 (-0.12 to 0.24) and -0.04 (-0.20 to 0.11), respectively. Rehabilitation did not significantly decrease long-term mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.66). The analysed trials did not report activities-of-daily-living data. The certainty of the evidence for QOL and mortality was moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced physical rehabilitation following ICU discharge may make little or no difference to QOL or mortality among patients who received mechanical ventilation in the ICU. Given the wide CIs, further studies are needed to confirm the efficacy of intensive post-ICU rehabilitation in selected populations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017080532.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations58
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207