Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38059060›Full record

ReviewThe South African journal of physiotherapy2023

Functional outcomes of patients in ICU using the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool: An integrative review.

Lebogang C Tjale, Silmara G Hanekom, Nombeko Mshunqane

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The South African journal of physiotherapy, 2023. 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. Trial
  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

3 authors.

Lebogang C TjaleDepartment of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-3261-7948
Silmara G HanekomDepartment of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-1413-9553
Nombeko MshunqaneDepartment of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2387-7521

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Outcome measures can assess the change in the health status of a patient in an intensive care unit (ICU). The Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment (CPAx) tool is used to assess the functional outcomes to monitor patient progression or regression in an ICU. Objectives: Our study aimed to identify studies that assess the functional outcomes of patients nursed in ICUs that use the CPAx tool. Method: An integrative review framework was used. Data were analysed in five steps to formulate a conclusion that aligned with the objective of our study. Data were extracted from peer-reviewed articles published online between 2013 and 2022. Databases that were used include Google Scholar, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and PubMed for reviewed articles. Keywords were used in the search strategy, and screening of abstracts was done to extract studies that met the inclusion criteria. Results: We retrieved 41 studies, of which 11 matched the inclusion criteria. Data were thematically arranged into studies measuring the validity and reliability of the CPAx tool, using the CPAx tool to measure outcomes in the ICU, the tool used at ICU and hospital discharge. Conclusion: The use of the CPAx tool has no impact on measuring the hospital length of stay or quality of life. Clinical implications: The tool is comprehensive and enhances the accuracy of patient assessment.

Indexed as

Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment toolcritically ill patientsfunctional outcomesintensive care unitoutcome measuresphysical functionsphysiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID38059060
PMCPMC10696528

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.