Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33057435›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Assessment of mobilization capacity in 10 different ICU scenarios by different professions.

Carsten Hermes, Peter Nydahl, Manfred Blobner, Rolf Dubb, Silke Filipovic, Arnold Kaltwasser, Bernhard Ulm, Stefan J Schaller

Erratum issuedAbstract read
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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Mobilization in Neurocritical Care: Challenges and Opportunities.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Carsten HermesCCRN, Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0889-1381
Peter NydahlNursing Research, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5178-0364
Manfred BlobnerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0370-5247
Rolf DubbAcademy of District Clinics Reutlingen, Reutlingen, Germany.
Silke FilipovicDepartment of Physiotherapy, University Hospital of Giessen and Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Arnold KaltwasserAcademy of District Clinics Reutlingen, Reutlingen, Germany.
Bernhard UlmDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Stefan J SchallerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6683-9584

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMobilization of intensive care patients is a multi-professional task. Aim of this study was to explore how different professions working at Intensive Care Units (ICU) estimate the mobility capacity using the ICU Mobility Score in 10 different scenarios.

methodsTen fictitious patient-scenarios and guideline-related knowledge were assessed using an online survey. Critical care team members in German-speaking countries were invited to participate. All datasets including professional data and at least one scenario were analyzed. Kruskal Wallis test was used for the individual scenarios, while a linear mixed-model was used over all responses.

resultsIn total, 515 of 788 (65%) participants could be evaluated. Physicians (p = 0.001) and nurses (p = 0.002) selected a lower ICU Mobility Score (-0.7 95% CI -1.1 to -0.3 and -0.4 95% CI -0.7 to -0.2, respectively) than physical therapists, while other specialists did not (p = 0.81). Participants who classified themselves as experts or could define early mobilization in accordance to the "S2e guideline: positioning and early mobilisation in prophylaxis or therapy of pulmonary disorders" correctly selected higher mobilization levels (0.2 95% CI 0.0 to 0.4, p = 0.049 and 0.3 95% CI 0.1 to 0.5, p = 0.002, respectively).

conclusionDifferent professions scored the mobilization capacity of patients differently, with nurses and physicians estimating significantly lower capacity than physical therapists. The exact knowledge of guidelines and recommendations, such as the definition of early mobilization, independently lead to a higher score. Interprofessional education, interprofessional rounds and mobilization activities could further enhance knowledge and practice of mobilization in the critical care team.

Indexed as

AdultEarly AmbulationFemaleGuideline AdherenceHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedPatient PositioningPractice Guidelines as TopicSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID33057435
PMCPMC7561080

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.