Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38066562›Full record

ReviewCritical care (London, England)2023

Do critical illness survivors with multimorbidity need a different model of care?

Jonathan Stewart, Judy Bradley, Susan Smith, Joanne McPeake, Timothy Walsh, Kimberley Haines, Nina Leggett, Nigel Hart, Danny McAuley

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Jonathan StewartCentre for Experimental Medicine, Wellcome-Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland. jstewart52@qub.ac.uk.
Judy BradleyCentre for Experimental Medicine, Wellcome-Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Susan SmithDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Joanne McPeakeThe Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Timothy WalshUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Kimberley HainesDepartment of Critical Care, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Nina LeggettDepartment of Critical Care, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Nigel HartCentre for Medical Education, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Danny McAuleyCentre for Experimental Medicine, Wellcome-Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Queen's University Belfast · GBUniversity of Melbourne · AUTrinity College Dublin · IEUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

HSC Research and Development Office, Public Health Agency, Northern Ireland EAT/5675/21
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is currently a lack of evidence on the optimal strategy to support patient recovery after critical illness. Previous research has largely focussed on rehabilitation interventions which aimed to address physical, psychological, and cognitive functional sequelae, the majority of which have failed to demonstrate benefit for the selected outcomes in clinical trials. It is increasingly recognised that a person's existing health status, and in particular multimorbidity (usually defined as two or more medical conditions) and frailty, are strongly associated with their long-term outcomes after critical illness. Recent evidence indicates the existence of a distinct subgroup of critical illness survivors with multimorbidity and high healthcare utilisation, whose prior health trajectory is a better predictor of long-term outcomes than the severity of their acute illness. This review examines the complex relationships between multimorbidity and patient outcomes after critical illness, which are likely mediated by a range of factors including the number, severity, and modifiability of a person's medical conditions, as well as related factors including treatment burden, functional status, healthcare delivery, and social support. We explore potential strategies to optimise patient recovery after critical illness in the presence of multimorbidity. A comprehensive and individualized approach is likely necessary including close coordination among healthcare providers, medication reconciliation and management, and addressing the physical, psychological, and social aspects of recovery. Providing patient-centred care that proactively identifies critical illness survivors with multimorbidity and accounts for their unique challenges and needs is likely crucial to facilitate recovery and improve outcomes.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessMultimorbidityHealth StatusHumansPatient-Centered CareSurvivorsCritical illnessMultimorbidityTransitions of care

Identifiers

PMID38066562
PMCPMC10709866
OpenAlexW4389478440

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.