ArticleBMJ open2023
Effect of ICU care bundles on long-term patient-relevant outcomes: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Non-pharmacological interventions to support the cognitive rehabilitation of patients admitted to the intensive care unit: An umbrella review.Nursing in critical care · 2025Pooled it
- The Start of a Good Innings, 50 Years of Intensive Care Medicine.World journal of surgery · 2026Review
- Current strategies and future directions to enhance recovery following critical illness.Thorax · 2026Review
- Post-intensive care syndrome: a state-of-the-art review.Singapore medical journal · 2026Review
- Extending the interval for changing flushing solutions for central venous and arterial line systems in the intensive care unit: An evidence-based quality improvement project.Nursing in critical care · 2025Article
- Unveiling the conceptual and intellectual map of care bundle research in ICUs: Trends, key issues, and collaborative networks.Nursing in critical care · 2025Article
- [Post-Intensive Care Syndrome: functional impairments of critical illness survivors].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2025Review
- Creating a Culture of an Awake and Walking Intensive Care Unit: In-Hospital Strategies to Mitigate Post-Intensive Care Syndrome.Critical care clinics · 2025Review
- Quality improvement collaborative for improving patient care delivery in Argentine public health sector intensive care units.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Article
- Biomarkers of neuropsychiatric dysfunction in intensive care unit survivors: a prospective cohort study.Critical care scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCare bundles are considered a key tool to improve bedside quality of care in the intensive care unit (ICU). We explored their effect on long-term patient-relevant outcomes.
designSystematic literature search and scoping review. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, APA PsycInfo, Web of Science, CDSR and CENTRAL for keywords of intensive care, care bundles, patient-relevant outcomes, and follow-up studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Original articles with patients admitted to adult ICUs assessing bundle implementations and measuring long-term (ie, ICU discharge or later) patient-relevant outcomes (ie, mortality, health-related quality of life (HrQoL), post-intensive care syndrome (PICS), care-related outcomes, adverse events, and social health). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: After dual, independent, two-stage selection and charting, eligible records were critically appraised and assessed for bundle type, implementation strategies, and effects on long-term patient-relevant outcomes.
resultsOf 2012 records, 38 met inclusion criteria; 55% (n=21) were before-after studies, 21% (n=8) observational cohort studies, 13% (n=5) randomised controlled trials, and 11% (n=4) had other designs. Bundles pertained to sepsis (n=11), neurocognition (n=6), communication (n=4), early rehabilitation (n=3), pharmacological discontinuation (n=3), ventilation (n=2) or combined bundles (n=9). Almost two-thirds of the studies reported on survival (n=24), 45% (n=17) on care-related outcomes (eg, discharge disposition), and 13% (n=5) of studies on HrQoL. Regarding PICS, 24% (n=9) assessed cognition, 13% (n=5) physical health, and 11% (n=4) mental health, up to 1 year after discharge. The effects of bundles on long-term patient-relevant outcomes was inconclusive, except for a positive effect of sepsis bundles on survival. The inconclusive effects may have been due to the high risk of bias in included studies and the variability in implementation strategies, instruments, and follow-up times.
conclusionsThere is a need to explore the long-term effects of ICU bundles on HrQoL and PICS. Closing this knowledge gap appears vital to determine if there is long-term patient value of ICU bundles.
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.