ArticleCHEST critical care2024
Outcome Measures to Evaluate Functional Recovery in Survivors of Respiratory Failure: A Scoping Review.
Article in CHEST critical care, 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.
- Management strategies for burning mouth syndrome: a comprehensive review.Journal of oral & facial pain and headache · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRespiratory failure is a life-threatening condition affecting millions of individuals in the United States annually. Survivors experience persistent functional impairments, decreased quality of life, and cognitive impairments. However, no established standard exists for measuring functional recovery among survivors of respiratory failure. RESEARCH QUESTION: What outcomes are being used to measure and characterize functional recovery among survivors of respiratory failure? STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsIn this scoping review, we developed a review protocol following International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) guidelines. Two independent reviewers assessed titles and abstracts, followed by full-text review. Articles were included if study participants were aged 18 years or older, survived a hospitalization for acute respiratory failure, and received invasive mechanical ventilation as an intervention; identified function or functional recovery after respiratory failure as a study outcome; were peer-reviewed; and used any type of quantitative study design.
resultsWe reviewed 5,873 abstracts and identified 56 eligible articles. Among these articles, 28 distinct measures were used to assess functional recovery among survivors, including both performance-based measures (n = 8) and self-reported and proxy-reported measures (n = 20). Before 2019, 12 of the 28 distinct outcome measures (43%) were used, whereas 25 distinct measures (89%) were used from 2019 through 2024. The 6-min walk test appeared most frequently (46%) across the studies, and only 34 of 56 studies measured outcomes ≥ 6 months after discharge or study enrollment.
interpretationHeterogeneity exists in how functional recovery is measured among survivors of respiratory failure, which highlights a need to establish a gold standard to ensure effective and consistent measurement. CHEST Critical Care 2024; 2(3):100084.
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.