Early mobilization protocols for critically ill pediatric patients: systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the existing early mobilization protocols in pediatric intensive care units. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed using the databases MEDLINE®, Embase, SciELO, LILACS and PeDRO, without restrictions of date and language. Observational and randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials that described an early mobilization program in patients aged between 29 days and 18 years admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit were included. The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies and the Cochrane Collaboration. RESULTS: A total of 8,663 studies were identified, of which 6 were included in this review. Three studies described the implementation of an early mobilization program, including activities such as progressive passive mobilization, positioning, and discussion of mobilization goals with the team, in addition to contraindications and interruption criteria. Cycle ergometer and virtual reality games were also used as resources for mobilization. Four studies considered the importance of the participation of the multidisciplinary team in the implementation of early mobilization protocols. CONCLUSION: In general, early mobilization protocols are based on individualized interventions, depending on the child's development. In addition, the use of a cycle ergometer may be feasible and safe in this population. The implementation of institutional and multidisciplinary protocols may contribute to the use of early mobilization in pediatric intensive care units; however, studies demonstrating the efficacy of such intervention are needed.
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 | 0.010 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".