A scoping review of incidence and assessment tools for post-intensive care syndrome following cardiac surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Post-intensive care syndrome is a new or worsening persistent deterioration in cognitive, mental, and/or physical health following a prolonged admission to an intensive care unit. Post-intensive care syndrome remains underexplored following cardiac surgery, with a lack of understanding of the incidence and tools used to measure the symptoms. A scoping review was conducted to determine the incidence and to identify the tools commonly used to measure symptoms of post-intensive care syndrome following cardiac surgery. METHODS: The electronic databases Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), Scopus, and CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and Google Scholar were searched with keywords and controlled vocabulary to describe both cardiac surgery and post-intensive care syndrome (cardiac surgical procedures, heart surgery, and post-intensive care symptoms) and symptoms (delirium, depression, mobility and quality of life). Included were articles written in English and published after 2005 that described cognitive, mental, and physical symptoms of post-intensive care syndrome following cardiac surgery. 3,131 articles were found, with 565 duplicates, leaving 2,566 articles to be screened. Of these, seven unique studies were included. RESULTS: Five studies explored cognitive health, three mental health, one cognitive and mental health, and none physical health. No identified studies reported the overall incidence of post-intensive care syndrome following cardiac surgery. The incidence of cognitive health issues ranged from 21% to 38%, and mental health issues ranged from 16% to 99%. In total, 17 different tools were identified - 14 for cognitive health and three for mental health. No identified studies used the same tools to measure symptoms. No single tool was found to measure all three domains. CONCLUSION: This scoping review identified a literature gap specific to the incidence and inconsistency of assessment tools for post-intensive care syndrome in cardiac surgery patients. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This work impacts clinical practice for the bedside nurse by raising awareness of an emerging health issue.
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 | 0.023 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.042 | 0.041 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".