ArticleBMJ open2020
Intensive care units follow-up: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence and mortality risk of low skeletal muscle mass in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Pooled it
- Intensive care units follow-up: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIncreasing numbers of patients are surviving critical illness, leading to growing concern about the potential impact of the long-term consequences of intensive care on patients, families and society as a whole. These long-term effects are together known as postintensive care syndrome and their presence can be evaluated at intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up consultations. However, the services provided by these consultations vary across hospitals and units, in part because there is no validated standard model to evaluate patients and their quality of life after ICU discharge. We describe a protocol for a scoping review focusing on models of ICU follow-up and the impact of such strategies on improving patient quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this scoping review, we will search the literature systematically using electronic databases (MEDLINE - from database inception to June 15th 2020) and a grey literature search. We will involve stakeholders as recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute approach developed by Peters ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethics approval, because data will be obtained through a review of published primary studies. The results of our evaluation will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will also be disseminated through presentations at national and international conferences.
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.