Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30659467›Full record

Observational studyNeurocritical care2019

Safety and Feasibility of Early Mobilization in Patients with Subarachnoid Hemorrhage and External Ventricular Drain.

Bethany Young, Megan Moyer, William Pino, David Kung, Eric Zager, Monisha A Kumar

Open access · bronzeAbstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Neurocritical care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Prevention and Treatment of ICU Delirium in Brain Injured Patients.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Mobilization phases in traumatic brain injury.Acute and critical care · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Bethany YoungHospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA. Bethany.young@uphs.upenn.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2022-5779
Megan MoyerUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
William PinoGood Shepherd Penn Partners at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
David KungUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Eric ZagerUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Monisha A KumarUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
University of Pennsylvania · USHospital of the University of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectiveIn November 2014, our Neurointensive Care Unit began a multi-phased progressive early mobilization initiative for patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage and an external ventricular drain (EVD). Our goal was to transition from a culture of complete bed rest (Phase 0) to a physical and occupational therapy (PT/OT)-guided mobilization protocol (Phase I), and ultimately to a nurse-driven mobilization protocol (Phase II). We hypothesized that nurses could mobilize patients as safely as an exclusively PT/OT-guided approach.

methodsIn Phase I, patients were mobilized only with PT/OT at bedside; no independent time out of bed occurred. In Phase II, nurses independently mobilized patients with EVDs, and patients could remain out of bed for up to 3 h at a time. Physical and occupational therapists continued routine consultation during Phase II.

resultsPhase II patients were mobilized more frequently than Phase I patients [7.1 times per ICU stay (± 4.37) versus 3.0 times (± 1.33); p = 0.02], although not earlier [day 4.9 (± 3.46) versus day 6.0 (± 3.16); p = 0.32]. All Phase II patients were discharged to home PT services or acute rehabilitation centers. No patients were discharged to skilled nursing or long-term acute care hospitals, versus 12.5% in Phase I. In a multivariate analysis, odds of discharge to home/rehab were 3.83 for mobilized patients, independent of age and severity of illness. Other quality outcomes (length of stay, ventilator days, tracheostomy placement) between Phase I and Phase II patients were similar. No adverse events were attributable to early mobilization.

conclusionsNurse-driven mobilization for patients with EVDs is safe, feasible, and leads to more frequent ambulation compared to a therapy-driven protocol. Nurse-driven mobilization may be associated with improved discharge disposition, although exact causation cannot be determined by these data.

Indexed as

DrainageEarly AmbulationOccupational TherapyPhysical Therapy ModalitiesAdultAgedCohort StudiesFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNurse's RoleSubarachnoid HemorrhageEarly mobilityExternal ventricular drainMobilizationStrokeSubarachnoid hemorrhage

Identifiers

PMID30659467
OpenAlexW2909055848

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.