Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35925160›Full record

ReviewDie Anaesthesiologie2022

[Early mobilization in the intensive care unit-Are robot-assisted systems the future?]

Lucas Huebner, Ines Schroeder, Eduard Kraft, Marcus Gutmann, Johanna Biebl, Amrei Christin Klamt, Jana Frey, Angelika Warmbein, Ivanka Rathgeber, Inge Eberl and 4 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Die Anaesthesiologie, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

14 authors.

Lucas HuebnerKlinik für Anästhesiologie, LMU Klinikum, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, München, Deutschland. lucas.huebner@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Ines SchroederKlinik für Anästhesiologie, LMU Klinikum, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, München, Deutschland.
Eduard KraftKlinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Muskuloskelettales Universitätszentrum München (MUM), Klinikum der Universität München, LMU München, München, Deutschland.
Marcus GutmannKlinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Muskuloskelettales Universitätszentrum München (MUM), Klinikum der Universität München, LMU München, München, Deutschland.
Johanna BieblKlinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Muskuloskelettales Universitätszentrum München (MUM), Klinikum der Universität München, LMU München, München, Deutschland.
Amrei Christin KlamtProfessur für Pflegewissenschaften, Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Eichstätt, Deutschland.
Jana FreyProfessur für Pflegewissenschaften, Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Eichstätt, Deutschland.
Angelika WarmbeinKlinische Pflegeforschung & Qualitätsmanagement, LMU Klinikum, München, Deutschland.
Ivanka RathgeberKlinische Pflegeforschung & Qualitätsmanagement, LMU Klinikum, München, Deutschland.
Inge EberlProfessur für Pflegewissenschaften, Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Eichstätt, Deutschland.
Uli FischerKlinische Pflegeforschung & Qualitätsmanagement, LMU Klinikum, München, Deutschland.
Christina ScharfKlinik für Anästhesiologie, LMU Klinikum, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, München, Deutschland.
Stefan J SchallerKlinik für Anästhesiologie mit Schwerpunkt operative Intensivmedizin, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland.
Michael ZollerKlinik für Anästhesiologie, LMU Klinikum, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, München, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntensive care unit (ICU) acquired weakness is associated with reduced physical function, increased mortality and reduced quality of life, and affects about 43% of survivors of critical illness. Lacking therapeutic options, the prevention of known risk factors and implementation of early mobilization is essential. Robotic assistance devices are increasingly being studied in mobilization.

objectiveThis qualitative review synthesizes the evidence of early mobilization in the ICU and focuses on the advantages of robotic assistance devices.

resultsActive mobilization should begin early during critical care. Interventions commencing 72 h after admission to the ICU are considered early. Mobilization interventions during critical care have been shown to be safe and reduce the time on mechanical ventilation in the ICU and the length of delirious episodes. Protocolized early mobilization interventions led to more active mobilization and increased functional independence and mobility at hospital discharge. In rehabilitation after stroke, robot-assisted training increases the chance of regaining independent walking ability, especially in more severely impaired patients, seems to be safe and increases muscle strength and quality of life in small trials.

conclusionEarly mobilization improves the outcome of the critically ill. Robotic devices support the gait training after stroke and are the subject of ongoing studies on early mobilization and verticalization in the intensive care setting.

Indexed as

RoboticsStrokeCritical IllnessEarly AmbulationHumansIntensive Care UnitsQuality of LifeCritical careCritical illness polyneuropathyMuscle weaknessRehabilitationRobotics

Identifiers

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.