ArticleBMJ open2025
Exploring the use of physical rehabilitation for sepsis survivors: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore the use, parameters, safety and outcomes of physical rehabilitation for adults with sepsis.
designWe conducted a scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute framework.
participantsStudies were eligible for inclusion in the study if they included: (1) adults 18 and older, (2) with a previous diagnosis of sepsis, (3) using a physical rehabilitation intervention at any point of sepsis management, (4) published in English or French. PROCEDURE: We searched seven databases and screened titles and abstracts, reviewed full texts and performed data extraction independently and in duplicate. We summarised findings narratively using the "population, context, concept" framework and used descriptive statistics where appropriate. End-users reviewed and commented on study findings.
resultsWe included 58 studies, representing 77 434 participants, with the majority (79%) being published in the last decade. A large proportion (36%) of physical rehabilitation interventions included exercise and were overseen by a physical therapist (41%). The parameters of the interventions varied widely. However, all interventions (100%) were hospital based and the interventions implemented appeared safe. Of the 28 studies evaluating effectiveness of the intervention, function improved in most studies (78%) following physical rehabilitation.
conclusionResearch addressing physical rehabilitation for patients with sepsis is increasing. Physical rehabilitation appears safe and may improve functional outcomes in those with sepsis. Future research should report details of intervention parameters and evaluate rehabilitation post-hospital discharge to maximise impact on function and quality of life for sepsis survivors. REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered on Open Science Framework Registries (Registration DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2EPJ6).
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.