Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36910489›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023

Development and validation of an intensive care unit acquired weakness prediction model: A cohort study.

Zi Yang, Xiaohui Wang, Guangming Chang, Qiuli Cao, Faying Wang, Zeyu Peng, Yuying Fan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Risk factors of ICU-acquired weakness in sepsis patients.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

7 authors.

Zi YangClinical Nursing Teaching Department, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Xiaohui WangDepartment of Nursing, Shenzhen Qianhai Taikang Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Guangming ChangOffice of Medical Ethics Committee, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Qiuli CaoSurgical Laboratory, Department of Medical Education, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jiamusi University, Jiamusi, China.
Faying WangClinical Nursing Teaching Department, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Zeyu PengClinical Nursing Teaching Department, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.
Yuying FanClinical Nursing Teaching Department, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: At present, intensive care unit acquired weakness (ICU-AW) has become an important health care issue. The aim of this study was to develop and validate an ICU-AW prediction model for adult patients in intensive care unit (ICU) to provide a practical tool for early clinical diagnosis. Methods: An observational cohort study was conducted including 400 adult patients admitted from September 2021 to June 2022 at an ICU with four ward at a medical university affiliated hospital in China. The Medical Research Council (MRC) scale was used to assess bedside muscle strength in ICU patients as a diagnostic basis for ICUAW. Patients were divided into the ICU-AW group and the no ICU-AW group and the clinical data of the two groups were statistically analyzed. A risk prediction model was then developed using binary logistic regression. Sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate the predictive ability of the model. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test was used to assess the model fit. The bootstrap method was used for internal verification of the model. In addition, the data of 120 patients in the validation group were selected for external validation of the model. Results: The prediction model contained five risk factors: gender (OR: 4.31, 95% CI: 1.682-11.042), shock (OR: 3.473, 95% CI: 1.191-10.122), mechanical ventilation time (OR: 1.592, 95% CI: 1.317-1.925), length of ICU stay (OR: 1.085, 95% CI: 1.018-1.156) and age (OR: 1.075, 95% CI: 1.036-1.115). The AUC of this model was 0.904 (95% CI: 0.847-0.961), with sensitivity of 87.5%, specificity of 85.8%, and Youden index of 0.733. The AUC of the model after resampling is 0.889. The model verification results showed that the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 71.4, 92.9, and 92.9%, respectively. Conclusion: An accurate, and readily implementable, risk prediction model for ICU-AW has been developed. This model uses readily obtained variables to predict patient ICU-AW risk. This model provides a tool for early clinical screening for ICU-AW.

Indexed as

intensive care unitintensive care unit acquired weaknessmodelrisk factorsrisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID36910489
PMCPMC9993479

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.