Effect of intensive care unit diary on quality of life of intensive care unit survivors and their relatives: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the current literature on the effect of ICU diaries on the quality of life of ICU survivors and their relatives. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched the online databases Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI and WanFang from inception to April 2021. Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used to assess the methodological quality. RESULTS: Seven studies were identified. ICU diaries improved the QoL of ICU survivors (SMD 0.79, 95% CI 0.24-1.34), and a small study described no benefit of diaries in improving the QoL of relatives. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis revealed the use of ICU diaries to improve the QoL in survivors, but the ICU diaries do not have a beneficial effect on the QoL in relatives. The evidence summarized in our study is limited and biased, and more research should be carried out to verify it.
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 | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".