Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34025756›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Intensive Care Society2021

Instruments to measure outcomes of post-intensive care syndrome in outpatient care settings - Results of an expert consensus and feasibility field test.

Claudia D Spies, Henning Krampe, Nicolas Paul, Claudia Denke, Jörn Kiselev, Sophie K Piper, Jochen Kruppa, Julius J Grunow, Karin Steinecke, Tuba Gülmez and 10 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04175236 (Analysis of a Short Assessment of Post Intensive Care Syndrome), which is not on this map. Cited by 62 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 5 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.

NCT04175236 completednot on this map

Analysis of a Short Assessment of Post Intensive Care Syndrome (PICS)

TypeobservationalSponsorClaudia SpiesRan2018 to 2019Enrolled9ConditionsPostintensive Care Syndrome
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

62 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. [S3 guideline on sepsis-prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up care-update 2025].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Core outcome sets and trials of nutrition and metabolism interventions.Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care · 2026
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Post-Intensive Care Syndrome: From Diagnosis To Treatment.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2026
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

20 authors.

Claudia D SpiesDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CCM, CVK), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1062-0495
Henning KrampeDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CCM, CVK), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Nicolas PaulDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CCM, CVK), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2228-3980
Claudia DenkeDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CCM, CVK), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Jörn KiselevDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CCM, CVK), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Sophie K PiperInstitute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0147-8992
Jochen KruppaInstitute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Julius J GrunowDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CCM, CVK), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Karin SteineckeDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CCM, CVK), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Tuba GülmezDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CCM, CVK), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Kathrin ScholtzDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CCM, CVK), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Simone RosseauKlinikum Ernst von Bergmann, Pneumologisches Beatmungszentrum, Bad Belzig, Germany.
Christiane HartogDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CCM, CVK), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Reinhard BusseDepartment for Health Care Management, Berlin University of Technology, Berlin, Germany.
Jörg CaumannsInnovation Center Telehealth Technologies, Fraunhofer Institute for Open Communication Systems (FOKUS), Berlin, Germany.
Ursula MarschallBarmer BARMER, Berlin, Germany.
Martin GerschDepartment of Information Systems, School of Business & Economics, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Christian ApfelbacherMedical Sociology, Institute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Steffen Weber-CarstensDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CCM, CVK), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Björn WeissDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CCM, CVK), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is no consensus on the instruments for diagnosis of post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). We present a proposal for a set of outcome measurement instruments of PICS in outpatient care.

methodsWe conducted a three-round, semi-structured consensus-seeking process with medical experts, followed each by exploratory feasibility investigations with intensive care unit survivors (n

resultsWe suggest an outcome measurement instrument set used in a two-step process. First step: Screening with brief tests covering PICS domains of (1) mental health (Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4)), (2) cognition (MiniCog, Animal Naming), (3) physical function (Timed Up-and-Go (TUG), handgrip strength), and (4) health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (EQ-5D-5L). Single items measure subjective health before and after the intensive care unit stay. If patients report new or worsened health problems after intensive care unit discharge and show relevant impairment in at least one of the screening tests, a second extended assessment follows: (1) Mental health (Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8), Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7 (GAD-7), Impact of Event Scale - revised (IES-R)); (2) cognition (Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), Trail Making Test (TMT) A and B); (3) physical function (2-Minute Walk Test (2-MWT), handgrip strength, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB)); and (4) HRQoL (EQ-5D-5L, 12-Item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0)).

conclusionsWe propose an outcome measurement instrument set used in a two-step measurement of PICS, combining performance-based and patient-reported outcome measures. First-step screening is brief, free-of-charge, and easily applicable by health care professionals across different sectors. If indicated, specialized healthcare providers can perform the extended, second-step assessment. Usage of the first-step screening of our suggested outcome measurement instrument set in outpatient clinics with subsequent transfer to specialists is recommended for all intensive care unit survivors. This may increase awareness and reduce the burden of PICS.

trial registrationThis study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04175236; first posted 22 November 2019).

Indexed as

cognitioncritical careintensive care medicineintensive care unitmental healthphysical functionPost-intensive care syndromesurvivors

Identifiers

PMID34025756
PMCPMC8120565

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.