Trial reportBMJ open2024
Effect of goal-directed mobilisation versus standard care on physical functioning among medical inpatients: the GoMob-in randomised, controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04760392 (Goal-directed Mobilization of Medical Inpatients), which is not on this 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.
Goal-directed Mobilization of Medical Inpatients (GoMob-in) - a Randomized, Controlled Trial
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the effect of goal-directed mobilisation (GDM) on physical functioning in medical inpatients.
designRandomised, controlled, single-centre, parallel, superiority trial with a 3-month follow-up and blinded outcome assessment.
settingGeneral internal medicine wards of a Swiss tertiary acute hospital, September 2021 to April 2023.
participantsAdults with expected hospitalisation of ≥5 days, physiotherapy prescription and ability to follow study procedures.
interventionGDM during hospitalisation, which includes personal goal setting and a short session of patient education through a physiotherapist (experimental group), versus standard care (control group). OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the change in physical activity between baseline and day 5 (De Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI)). Secondary outcomes included in-hospital accelerometer-measured mobilisation time; in-hospital falls; delirium; length of stay; change in independence in activities of daily living, concerns of falling and quality of life; falls, readmission and mortality within 3 months.
resultsThe study was completed by 123 of 162 (76%) patients enrolled, with the primary outcome collected at day 5 in 126 (78%) participants. DEMMI Score improved by 8.2 (SD 15.1) points in the control group and 9.4 (SD 14.2) in the intervention group, with a mean difference of 0.3 (adjusted for the stratification factors age and initial DEMMI Score, 95% CI -4.1 to 4.8, p=0.88). We did not observe a statistically significant difference in effects of the interventions on any secondary outcome.
conclusionsThe patient's physical functioning improved during hospitalisation, but the improvement was similar for GDM and standard of care. Improving physical activity during an acute medical hospitalisation remains challenging. Future interventions should target additional barriers that can be implemented without augmenting resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04760392.
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.