Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38476451›Full record

ReviewAcute medicine & surgery

Postintensive care syndrome family: A comprehensive review.

Kasumi Shirasaki, Toru Hifumi, Nobuto Nakanishi, Nobuyuki Nosaka, Kyohei Miyamoto, Miyuki H Komachi, Junpei Haruna, Shigeaki Inoue, Norio Otani

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Acute medicine & surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
28.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Post-Intensive Care Syndrome in Family: A Concept Analysis.Scandinavian journal of caring sciences · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Review
  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 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Kasumi ShirasakiDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine St. Luke's International Hospital Tokyo Japan.
Toru HifumiDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine St. Luke's International Hospital Tokyo Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3581-0890
Nobuto NakanishiDivision of Disaster and Emergency Medicine, Department of Surgery Related Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine Kobe Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2394-2688
Nobuyuki NosakaDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine Tokyo Medical and Dental University Tokyo Japan.
Kyohei MiyamotoDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine Wakayama Medical University Wakayama Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5473-2731
Miyuki H KomachiSchool of Clinical Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Child and Adolescent Resilience and Mental Health University of Cambridge Cambridge UK.
Junpei HarunaDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, School of Medicine Sapporo Medical University Hokkaido Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8413-502X
Shigeaki InoueDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine Wakayama Medical University Wakayama Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3907-8537
Norio OtaniDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine St. Luke's International Hospital Tokyo Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7122-5555
St. Luke's International Hospital · JPWakayama Medical University · JPKobe University · JPSapporo Medical University · JPTokyo Medical and Dental University · JPUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Families of critically ill patients are predisposed to tremendous burdens when their relatives are admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Postintensive care syndrome family (PICS-F) can be described as a devastated life, encompassing psychological, physical, and socioeconomical burdens that begin with the emotional impact experienced by the family when the patient is admitted to the ICU. PICS-F was primarily proposed as a clinically significant psychological impairment, but it needs to be extended beyond the psychological impairment of the family to include physical and socioeconomical impairments in the future. The prevalence of physiological problems including depression, anxiety and post-traumatic syndrome is 20-40%, and that of non-physiological problems including fatigue is 15% at 6 months after the ICU stay. Assessment of PICS-F was frequently conducted at 3- or 6-month points, although the beginning of the evaluation was based on different assessment points among each of the studies. Families of ICU patients need to be given and understand accurate information, such as the patient's diagnosis, planned care, and prognosis. Prevention of PICS-F requires a continuous bundle of multifaceted and/or multidisciplinary interventions including providing a family information leaflet, ICU diary, communication facilitators, supportive grief care, and follow-up, for the patient and families from during the ICU stay to after discharge from the ICU. This is the first comprehensive review of PICS-F to address the concept, risk factors, assessment tools, prevalence, and management to prevent PICS-F to facilitate acute care physicians' understanding of PICS-F.

Indexed as

postintensive care syndrome familyprevention bundlepsychologicalresilience

Identifiers

PMID38476451
PMCPMC10928249
OpenAlexW4392712543

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.