Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38582625›Full record

ArticleAustralian critical care : official journal of the Confederation of Australian Critical Care Nurses2024

Participant retention in follow-up studies of intensive care unit survivors - A scoping review.

Daniel L Young, Awsse Al-Ani, Mounika Lakhmalla, Vaishnavi Raman, Arooj Fatima, Lisa Aronson Friedman, Suryanarayana Reddy Challa, Sumana Vasishta, Mounica Koneru, Elizabeth Colantuoni and 3 more

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Australian critical care : official journal of the Confederation of Australian Critical Care Nurses, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

13 authors.

Daniel L YoungDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, USA; Outcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery Group, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, USA.
Awsse Al-AniPreventive Cardiology Department, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Mounika LakhmallaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Baton Rouge General Medical Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.
Vaishnavi RamanDivision of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, Grand River Hospital and St. Mary's General Hospital, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.
Arooj FatimaOutcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery Group, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, USA.
Lisa Aronson FriedmanOutcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery Group, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, USA.
Suryanarayana Reddy ChallaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Howard University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA.
Sumana VasishtaNHS Wales Shared Service Partnership (NWSSP), Wales, United Kingdom.
Mounica KoneruDepartment of Pediatrics, The Brooklyn Hospital Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Elizabeth ColantuoniOutcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery Group, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Dale M NeedhamOutcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery Group, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, USA; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, USA.
Victor D DinglasOutcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery Group, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, USA. Electronic address: victor.dinglas@jhmi.edu.
rest of the Scoping Review Team

Funding

Improving Long-Term Outcomes Clinical Research for Acute Respiratory FailureR24HL111895 · NHLBI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI NEEDHAM, DALE MURRAY · 2013 to 2017
$5.4M
NHLBI NIH HHS R24 HL111895
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo synthesize participant retention data and related reporting in studies evaluating post-hospital outcomes of survivors of critical illness after an intensive care unit (ICU) stay. REVIEW METHOD USED: A synthesis of literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry. Hand searched reference lists and personal files of relevant narrative and systematic review articles. REVIEW

methodsArticles were screened by pairs of independent reviewers. Similarly, data were abstracted by pairs of data collectors, with conflicts resolved by consensus or by a third reviewer.

resultsWe included 243 publications, from 225 unique studies of 87,602 participants. Participant retention could not be calculated for any time-points in 13% of studies nor in 22% of all follow-up time-points. Retention ranged from 18-100%. When compared to follow-up before 1-month, retention at each later timepoint was not significantly different. Age and sex were not associated with retention and more recent studies had decreased retention (odds ratio: 0.94 [95% confidence interval: 0.92-0.96; p < 0.001]). Reporting of retention-related study methodology was inconsistent.

conclusionRetention rate could not be calculated for 22% of study follow-up time-points, with retention at the remaining time-points generally being high (≥85%), but with high variability (18% - 100%). ICU survivorship research could be improved via: (i) more detailed guidance on reporting participant retention, and (ii) use of existing resources and best practices to facilitate better study design and to improve participant retention to preserve statistical power and reduce selection bias.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessIntensive Care UnitsSurvivorsFollow-Up StudiesHumansAcute respiratory failureCohortFollow-up studiesMeta-analysisParticipant retentionSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38582625
PMCPMC11452564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.