ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2021
A best evidence synthesis in practicing early active movements in ICU patients with mechanical ventilation.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study summarized the best evidence of early active movements in mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU and applied it in the intensive care unit of our hospital to evaluate the practical effects.
methodsThe best evidence for early activity in patients with mechanical ventilation in the ICU was summarized by using an evidence-based nursing method, and the results were clinically applied in the ICU. Patients who were mechanically ventilated in the ICU from January to March 2020 were selected as the control-group, and their counterparts from April to June 2020 were enrolled as the practice-group. The control-group-patients received conventional early active mobilities, and the practice-group-patients performed the best evidence-based early active mobilities. The Barthel index, muscle strength, duration of mechanical ventilation and length of ICU stay between the two groups were compared.
resultsThe scores of Barthel index and muscle strength of the practice group were remarkably higher than those of the control group, and the duration of mechanical ventilation and length of ICU stay were obviously shorter than those of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (
conclusionThe application of the best evidence of early active movement in ICU patients with mechanical ventilation can improve the daily life ability, promote the recovery of muscle strength, reduce the incidence of deep vein thrombosis and ICU acquired weakness, decrease the duration of mechanical ventilation and length of ICU hospital stay, thereby improving the clinical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34786127PMC8581916W3214369061What 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.