Scoping review of early mobility in the intensive care unit following cardiac surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Early mobility in the intensive care unit (ICU) within 24 h following cardiac surgery (CS) is guideline-recommended, safe, and supports improved patient outcomes. The evolution of early mobility following CS research has not been explored. Prior reviews have not included non-randomized controlled trials nor assessed the quality of intervention reporting using standard guidelines. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review addresses these gaps and maps CS ICU early mobility literature to understand the extent, range, and nature of the extant literature. DESIGN: The databases Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.org, and CS association websites were searched from inception to January 2025. Extracted details included early mobility definitions and modes, outcome measures, alignment of intervention reporting with the Consensus of Exercise Reporting Template (CERT), and the inclusion of sex/gender in results/discussions. RESULTS: A total of 109 studies were included. 43 studies defined early mobility, ranging from the day of surgery to within 2 weeks post-operatively. Many early mobility modes were noted, most commonly ambulation. Primary outcomes varied, with hospital length of stay and pulmonary function the most often studied. There was a consistent lack of reporting of CERT items. Only two studies presented findings disaggregated by sex/gender, and only 13 studies considered sex/gender in the discussion. CONCLUSIONS: There is heterogeniety in the extant CS ICU early mobility literature, specifically in early mobility definitions and modes, outcome measures, quality of intervention reporting, and consideration of sex/gender. Improvements to research design and reporting should be encouraged to support the advancement of the science.
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 | 0.028 | 0.147 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".