Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32804979›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Early mobilization post-myocardial infarction: A scoping review.

Haroon Munir, Jake Fromowitz, Michael Goldfarb

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. [Detrimental impact of acute coronary syndrome on the independence of the elderly].Archivos peruanos de cardiologia y cirugia cardiovascular
    Article
  7. Article
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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Haroon MunirDivision of Experimental Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9240-4568
Jake FromowitzNova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, United States of America.
Michael GoldfarbDivision of Experimental Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Jewish General Hospital · CAMcGill University · CANova Southeastern University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bedrest and immobilization following a myocardial infarction (MI) can lead to functional impairment that can persist following hospitalization. Early mobilization (EM) is associated with good functional and clinical outcomes in critical care, medical and surgical settings. However, the impact and current role of EM in post-MI care has not been well-defined. Our objective was to assess the evidence for post-MI mobilization, define current post-MI mobilization practice, and understand perspectives of cardiovascular professionals toward mobilization. A scoping review related to "early mobilization" and "myocardial infarction" was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Methodology. Pubmed, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library and CINAHL databases were included. Results were categorized into six topic areas. There were 59 references included in the analysis. There was evidence for the effectiveness and safety of earlier mobilization in experimental studies of the pre-revascularization era, but there was a lack of strong evidence for EM in contemporary post-MI care. Mobilization appears to be safe following arterial catheterization and is associated with minimal hemodynamic and respiratory compromise. Most people are delayed in mobilizing post-MI and spend the majority of the initial hospitalization period lying in bed. Only 1 of 7 current major cardiovascular professional societies guidelines recommend EM post-MI. There were no studies exploring the perspectives of cardiovascular professionals toward mobilization. EM may be beneficial in the post-MI care. However, there is an evidence gap for the impact of EM post-MI in the contemporary literature. More robust evidence from randomized clinical trials is required to inform clinicians and influence practice.

Indexed as

Early AmbulationAttitude of Health PersonnelHemodynamicsHumansMyocardial InfarctionPractice Guidelines as TopicSocieties, Medical

Identifiers

PMID32804979
PMCPMC7430744
OpenAlexW3049253392

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.