MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404295778 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-089824

ICU follow-up services and their impact on post-intensive care syndrome: a scoping review protocol

2024· review· en· W4404295778 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Xueshan Zhang, Yu Xu, Yongming Tian, Lin He, Yuan Chu

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWest China Hospital, Sichuan UniversitySichuan UniversityChina Scholarship CouncilQueen's UniversityTrinity College DublinUniversity College DublinQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)Health services researchIntensive careIntensive care medicinePublic healthNursingAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) seriously affects the quality of life of intensive care unit (ICU) survivors, their ability to return to work and society and the quality of life of their families, increasing overall care costs and healthcare expenditures. ICU follow-up services have important potential to improve PICS. However, the best clinical practice model of ICU follow-up service has not been fully defined and its benefits for ICU survivors are not clear. This review will synthesise and map the current types of follow-up services for ICU survivors and summarise the impact of follow-up services on PICS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will be conducted by applying the five-stage protocol proposed by Arksey and O'Malley in an updated version of the Joanna Briggs Institute. Eight academic databases including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO Academic, CINAHL, PsycInfo and SinoMed (China Biology Medicine) will be systematically searched from inception to the present. Peer-reviewed literature and grey literature will be included. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies will be included. Studies published in English or Chinese will be included. There will be no time restriction. Two reviewers will screen and select the articles independently and if there is any disagreement, the two reviewers will discuss or invite a third reviewer to make decisions together. Descriptive analysis will be used to conduct an overview of the literature. The results will be presented in a descriptive format in response to the review questions accompanied by the necessary tables or charts. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this scoping review because data could be obtained by reviewing published primary study results and do not involve human participants. Findings should be disseminated at scientific meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals.

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)0.078
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0780.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.013
Bibliometrics0.0210.016
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0090.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0620.008

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.397 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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