Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35525226›Full record

ArticleJournal of critical care2022

Variation in communication and family visiting policies in intensive care within and between countries during the Covid-19 pandemic: The COVISIT international survey.

Alexis Tabah, Muhammed Elhadi, Emma Ballard, Andrea Cortegiani, Maurizio Cecconi, Takeshi Unoki, Laurą Galarza, Regis Goulart Rosa, Francois Barbier, Elie Azoulay and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of critical care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Incidence rate of post-intensive care syndrome-family in Japan: A post-hoc analysis of a prospective observational study.Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Critical care and pandemic preparedness and response.British journal of anaesthesia · 2023
    Review
  16. The Effect of Video Call with Family Members on Physiological Parameters of Critically Ill Patients in Intensive Care Unit: A Quasi-experimental Study.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

21 authors.

Alexis TabahIntensive Care Unit, Redcliffe Hospital, Metro North Hospital and Health services, Queensland, Australia; Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: a.tabah@uq.edu.au.
Muhammed ElhadiFaculty of Medicine, University of Tripoli, Tripoli, Libya.
Emma BallardQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Andrea CortegianiDepartment of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), University of Palermo, Italy; Department of Anesthesia, Intensive Care and Emergency, Policlinico Paolo Giaccone, Palermo, Italy.
Maurizio CecconiAnaesthesia and Intensive Care Units, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy; Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Takeshi UnokiDepartment of Acute and Critical Care Nursing, School of Nursing, Sapporo City University, Sapporo, Japan.
Laurą GalarzaDepartment of Intensive Care, Hospital General Universitario de Castellon, Castellon de la Plana, Spain.
Regis Goulart RosaIntensive Care Unit, Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Francois BarbierMédecine Intensive - Réanimation Hôpital de la Source - CHR Orléans, Orléans, France.
Elie AzoulayMédecine Intensive et Réanimation, Groupe FAMIREA, Hôpital Saint-Louis, Université de Paris, Paris, France.
Kevin B LauplandDepartment of Intensive Care Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia; Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Nathalie Ssi Yan KaiQueensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Marlies OstermannDepartment of Critical Care & Nephrology, King's College London, Guy's & St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Guy FrancoisDivision of Scientific Affairs, Research, European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, Brussels, Belgium.
Jan J De WaeleDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium; Division of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Kirsten FiestDepartments of Critical Care Medicine, Community Health Sciences, Psychiatry, O'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Peter SpronkDepartments of Intensive Care Medicine, Gelre Hospitals, Albert Schweitzerlaan, Apeldoorn, the Netherlands.
Julie BenbenishtyIntensive Care Trauma, Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Mariangela PellegriniIntensive Care Unit, AnOpIVA, Akademiska sjukhuset, Uppsala, Sweden; Hedenstierna Laboratory, Department of Surgical Science, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Louise RoseFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK; Critical Care and Lane Fox Clinical Respiratory Physiology Research Centre, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
COVISIT contributors

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, intensive care units (ICU) introduced restrictions to in-person family visiting to safeguard patients, healthcare personnel, and visitors.

methodsWe conducted a web-based survey (March-July 2021) investigating ICU visiting practices before the pandemic, at peak COVID-19 ICU admissions, and at the time of survey response. We sought data on visiting policies and communication modes including use of virtual visiting (videoconferencing).

resultsWe obtained 667 valid responses representing ICUs in all continents. Before the pandemic, 20% (106/525) had unrestricted visiting hours; 6% (30/525) did not allow in-person visiting. At peak, 84% (558/667) did not allow in-person visiting for patients with COVID-19; 66% for patients without COVID-19. This proportion had decreased to 55% (369/667) at time of survey reporting. A government mandate to restrict hospital visiting was reported by 53% (354/646). Most ICUs (55%, 353/615) used regular telephone updates; 50% (306/667) used telephone for formal meetings and discussions regarding prognosis or end-of-life. Virtual visiting was available in 63% (418/667) at time of survey.

conclusionsHighly restrictive visiting policies were introduced at the initial pandemic peaks, were subsequently liberalized, but without returning to pre-pandemic practices. Telephone became the primary communication mode in most ICUs, supplemented with virtual visits.

Indexed as

COVID-19Visitors to PatientsCommunicationCritical CareFamilyHumansIntensive Care UnitsOrganizational PolicyPandemicsPolicyCOVID-19FamilyIntensive careRestrictionVisiting

Identifiers

PMID35525226
PMCPMC9067300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.