ArticleBMJ open2024
ICU follow-up services and their impact on post-intensive care syndrome: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPost-intensive care syndrome (PICS) seriously affects the quality of life of intensive care unit (ICU) survivors, their ability to return to work and society and the quality of life of their families, increasing overall care costs and healthcare expenditures. ICU follow-up services have important potential to improve PICS. However, the best clinical practice model of ICU follow-up service has not been fully defined and its benefits for ICU survivors are not clear. This review will synthesise and map the current types of follow-up services for ICU survivors and summarise the impact of follow-up services on PICS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will be conducted by applying the five-stage protocol proposed by Arksey and O'Malley in an updated version of the Joanna Briggs Institute. Eight academic databases including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO Academic, CINAHL, PsycInfo and SinoMed (China Biology Medicine) will be systematically searched from inception to the present. Peer-reviewed literature and grey literature will be included. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies will be included. Studies published in English or Chinese will be included. There will be no time restriction. Two reviewers will screen and select the articles independently and if there is any disagreement, the two reviewers will discuss or invite a third reviewer to make decisions together. Descriptive analysis will be used to conduct an overview of the literature. The results will be presented in a descriptive format in response to the review questions accompanied by the necessary tables or charts. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this scoping review because data could be obtained by reviewing published primary study results and do not involve human participants. Findings should be disseminated at scientific meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.