ArticleArchives of physiotherapy2016
Implementation of the physical function ICU test tool in a resource constrained intensive care unit to promote early mobilisation of critically ill patients- a feasibility study.
Article in Archives of physiotherapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physical Therapist-Led Therapeutic Exercise and Mobility in Adult Intensive Care Units: A Scoping Review of Operational Definitions, Dose Progression, Safety, and Documentation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Early physical therapy for a patient affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on awake veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a case report.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe shift of focus in outcome measures from mortality to assessment of functional status in intensive care unit (ICU) patients has resulted in the emergence of mobilisation of critically ill patients as a standard physiotherapy practice in most medium and high income countries. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of an early mobilisation program and to report on the changes in patient clinical outcomes following the intervention in a low income country.
methodsA prospective cohort study was carried out at one public hospital. An adult cohort of 35 patients was recruited within 24 h of being admitted into the unit, irrespective of ventilation method over a period of three months. An early mobilisation programme was implemented and prescribed using the Physical Function ICU Test (PFIT-s) which commenced in either the ICU or high dependent unit.
resultsThe median age of the 35 patients was 29 years (IQR = 24-45 years). More than half of the patients had undergone surgery due to either gastrointestinal problems or obstetrical complications. A total of 94 out of a possible of 219 exercise sessions were delivered to the patients (43.0 %). The tool was implemented in 32 (91.4 %) patients on the initial PFIT-s measurement and 16 (45.7 %) of the patients required the assistance of two people to stand. The Initial PFIT-s mean score was 5.3 ± 1.8. On final PFIT-s measurement, out of the 30 (85.7 %) patients seen, 15 (42.9 %) of the patients did not require any assistance to stand and the final PFIT-s mean score was 7.0 ± 1.9. There was a significant difference in both the initial PFIT-s total score (
conclusionAn early mobilisation program using PFIT-s was feasible and safe. There was a difference in functional capability based on gender, with males being more functionally active. Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria can lead to a delayed early mobilisation activities in ICU patients.
trial registrationPan African Clinical Trials Registry PACTR201408000829202. Registered 15 August 2014.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.