Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38519113›Full record

ArticlePhysical therapy2024

Early Mobilization Dose Reporting in Randomized Clinical Trials With Patients Who Were Mechanically Ventilated: A Scoping Review.

Felipe González-Seguel, Renato Letelier-Bernal

Open access · hybridAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Physical therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Felipe González-SeguelSchool of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, Clínica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile.ORCID 0000-0001-9099-2389
Renato Letelier-BernalPrograma de Magíster en Fisiología Clínica del Ejercicio, Facultad de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Mayor, Santiago, Chile.ORCID 0009-0007-0965-9687
Universidad Mayor · CL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this scoping review was to investigate the mobilization dose reporting in the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit.

methodsIn this scoping review, RCTs published from inception to December 2022 were searched in relevant electronic databases. Trials that involved adults receiving mechanical ventilation (>48 hours) and any early mobilization modality were analyzed. Two independent authors screened, selected, and extracted data. The mobilization doses of the intervention groups (IGs) and the comparator groups (CGs) were assessed as the proportion of reported items/total applicable from the main items of the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT).

resultsTwenty-three RCTs comprising 2707 patients (1358 from IG and 1349 from CG) were included, involving studies on neuromuscular electrical stimulation (n = 7), progressive mobility (n = 6), leg cycling (n = 3), tilt table (n = 1), and multicomponent (n = 6) mobilization. The pooled reporting of CERT items was 68% (86% for IG and 50% for CG). The most reported CERT items were type of exercise (100%) and weekly frequency (100%) for IG, whereas the least reported were intensity (4%) and individualization (22%) for CG. Regardless of the group, individualization, progression, and intensity of mobilization were the least reported items. Eight IGs (35%) reported all CERT items, whereas no CGs reported all of them.

conclusionsDeficits in mobilization dose reporting of intensive care unit RCTs were identified, especially for exercise intensity in adults receiving mechanical ventilation. One-third of IG reported all exercise dosing items, whereas no CG reported all of them. Future studies should investigate the details of optimal dosage reporting, particularly for CG. IMPACT: The lack of dose reporting may partially explain the inconsistency in the meta-analysis results of early mobilization trials, thus limiting the interpretation for clinical practice in the intensive care unit.

Indexed as

Early AmbulationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRespiration, ArtificialHumansIntensive Care UnitsClinical TrialsEarly MobilizationExerciseIntensive Care UnitRehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID38519113
PMCPMC11184528
OpenAlexW4394767971

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.