ArticleJournal of intensive care2025
Optimal timing for assessing post-intensive care syndrome in clinical research: a scoping review and expert survey.
Article in Journal of intensive care, 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.
- Rehabilitation and the post-intensive care syndrome across the recovery continuum: a narrative review.Intensive care medicine · 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
28 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSince the concept of post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) was proposed, numerous studies have assessed patients and their family members. However, a wide range of assessment timings has been employed across previous studies. This study aimed to clarify how assessment timings have been implemented in existing PICS research through a scoping review, and to explore expert opinions on optimal assessment timing via an online survey.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review of studies assessing PICS-related outcomes, including physical, cognitive, and psychological impairments, as well as PICS in family members. Studies were retrieved from MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL, and screened by two independent pairs of reviewers. Eligible studies were published between January 2014 and December 2022. Studies lacking a clear description of assessment timing were excluded. We analyzed the reference point used to determine assessment schedules, the assessment time points, and their frequency. Additionally, an online questionnaire was administered to 23 members of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine PICS committee and working group members to collect expert opinions on these three aspects for clinical research.
resultsA total of 657 studies were included. In prior studies, hospital discharge was the most commonly used reference point for determining assessment schedule (240 studies, 40%). However, ICU discharge was identified by experts as the ideal reference point (16 votes, 47%). The most frequently used assessment time points were 3 months (262, 23%), 6 months (212, 19%), and 12 months (206, 18%) post-discharge. Experts most commonly selected the period between 6 and 12 months as the optimal time point for assessment. While single assessments were most common in previous studies (337, 51%), experts considered three assessments to be ideal (12, 44%).
conclusionsThis study revealed notable discrepancies between the assessment timing reported in previous studies and the opinions of experts regarding optimal timing. Standardization of assessment timing in PICS research is warranted to enhance methodological consistency and comparability.
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.