ReviewInternational journal of nursing sciences2025
Risk prediction models for post-intensive care syndrome of ICU discharged patients: A systematic review.
Review in International journal of nursing sciences, 2025. 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.
- Predictive Utility of In-Hospital Screening for Postdischarge Depression Symptoms Among Survivors of Critical Illness.CHEST critical care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This systematic review aimed to assess the properties and feasibility of existing risk prediction models for post-intensive care syndrome outcomes in adult survivors of critical illness. Methods: As of November 1, 2023, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycInfo, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), SinoMed, Wanfang database, and China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP) were searched. Following the literature screening process, we extracted data encompassing participant sources, post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) outcomes, sample sizes, missing data, predictive factors, model development methodologies, and metrics for model performance and evaluation. We conducted a review and classification of the PICS domains and predictive factors identified in each study. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was employed to assess the quality and applicability of the studies. Results: This systematic review included a total of 16 studies, comprising two cognitive impairment studies, four psychological impairment studies, eight physiological impairment studies, and two studies on all three domains. The discriminative ability of prediction models measured by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.68-0.90. The predictive performance of most models was excellent, but most models were biased and overfitted. All predictive factors tend to encompass age, pre-ICU functional impairment, in-ICU experiences, and early-onset new symptoms. Conclusions: This review identified 16 prediction models and the predictive factors for PICS. Nonetheless, due to the numerous methodological and reporting shortcomings identified in the studies under review, clinicians should exercise caution when interpreting the predictions made by these models. To avert the development of PICS, it is imperative for clinicians to closely monitor prognostic factors, including the in-ICU experience and early-onset new symptoms.
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.