Early Mobilization of Patients Receiving Vasoactive Drugs in Critical Care Units: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Mobilization is feasible, safe, and beneficial to patients admitted to critical care units. Vasoactive therapy appears to be one of the most common barriers to early mobilization. Many recent publications have studied the safety and feasibility of mobilizing patients with these vasoactive drugs. The aim of this review was to synthesize the prevailing evidence pertaining to mobilizing patients receiving vasoactive drugs. Methods: The protocol was developed and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019127448). A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDRO), Cochrane Central, and Embase (through Cochrane) for original research, including case studies and consensus guidelines. PRISMA guidelines were used to conduct and report this review. The included articles were appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale independently and a consensus reached by 3 reviewers. Results and Conclusion: Evidence determining specific doses of vasoactive drugs that would allow safe mobilization of patients in critical care is lacking. The criteria that have been used to determine the eligibility to mobilize patients on vasoactive drugs have not been consistent.
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 | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".