Effects of intensive upright mobilisation on outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit: a randomised controlled trial with 12-months follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To examine effects of intensive upright mobilisation on short- and long-term outcomes in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients.Methods A randomised controlled trial compared patient outcomes after intensive twice-daily (n = 29) or daily mobilisation (n = 21). Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), mechanically ventilated for over 48 hours, were randomly assigned to one of the two groups. Outcomes were duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU and hospital lengths of stay; health-related quality of life and physical function.Results The twice-daily mobilisation group began upright mobilisation on day seven of ICU stay, and were mobilised upright on 31% of ICU days compared with the daily mobilisation group, who began upright mobilisation on day eight (p ≥ .05), and mobilised upright on 22% of ICU days (p = .03). No difference between groups was observed for any variable of interest across time-points over one year.Conclusions The intensive twice-daily mobilisation group neither started upright mobilisation early nor yielded superior short- or long-term outcomes compared to the daily mobilisation group. Both groups showed poor physical health-related quality of life and exercise capacity one year after ICU discharge. Our findings support the need for targeted and tailored upright mobilisation in the ICU and after discharge.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".