MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

[Summary of the best evidence for early exercise rehabilitation in patients with mechanically ventilated ICU-acquired weakness].

2024· review· en· W4402207366 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ruixiang Sun, Haijiao Jiang, Jun Wang, Jintian Yu, Quan Zhou, Ke Fang, Caizhe Ci

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationWeaknessPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePhysical therapyIntensive care medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To integrate the best evidence for early rehabilitation of mechanically ventilated ICU-acquired weakness (ICU-AW) patients using evidence-based methods, providing evidence-based basis for standardized evaluation and intervention of early exercise therapy for mechanically ventilated ICU-AW patients. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on the American Thoracic Society (ATS) Clinical Practice Guidelines, Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario (RNAO), Guidelines International Network (GIN), Canadian Medical Association Clinical Practice Guideline Library (CMACPGL), BMJ Clinical Evidence, UpToDate, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), PubMed, Cochrane Library, National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), UM-library, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), New Zealand Guidelines Group (NZGG), Chinese Medical Pulse Guidelines Website, CNKI and Wanfang data and other Chinese and English databases, professional team websites, and guideline websites for expert consensus, guidelines, randomized collected trial (RCT), systematic reviews and other evidence on early exercise rehabilitation for mechanically ventilated ICU-AW patients. The search time limit was from the establishment of the database to December 31, 2023. Literature search, screening, evaluation, information extraction was independently conducted by two evaluators with cross checking, and quality evaluation of the included literature was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 21 literatures were enrolled, including 5 guidelines, 5 systematic reviews, 4 expert consensuses, and 7 RCT, all of which with high evidence level and all were enrolled. They were summarized into seven aspects with assessment screening, exercise safety standards, precautions, setting of exercise time, exercise intensity, exercise sequence, and recommended exercise content as the core, and 32 best evidences. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence summarized can provide evidence-based basis for standardized assessment and intervention of early exercise rehabilitation in mechanically ventilated ICU-AW patients. ICU medical practitioners need to combine the actual clinical environment, individual differences and rehabilitation goals of patients, to provide targeted health guidance and intervention for the prevention of ICU-AW in mechanically ventilated patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.008
Bibliometrics0.0140.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders→French-language works237,207→