Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40973373›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Responsiveness and the minimal clinically important difference of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool (CPAx) in critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults: a study protocol for a prospective, multicentre, cohort study.

Sabrina Eggmann, Michelle Paton, Christa Villinger, Scott Bradley, Tahnee Hellings, Ashlea Hills, Philipp Venetz, Tessa Broadley, Anaïs Charles-Nelson, Carol Hodgson

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06419699 (Responsiveness and the Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06419699 active not recruitingnot on this map

Responsiveness and the Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool (CPAx) in Critically Ill, Mechanically Ventilated Adults

TypeobservationalSponsorInsel Gruppe AG, University Hospital BernRan2024 to 2026Enrolled120ConditionsMuscle Weakness, Critical Illness Myopathy, Critical Illness Polyneuropathy, Critical Illness Polyneuromyopathy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Sabrina EggmannThe Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia sabrina.eggmann@insel.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7379-7343
Michelle PatonThe Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Christa VillingerDepartment of Physiotherapy, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland.
Scott BradleyDepartment of Physiotherapy, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Tahnee HellingsDepartment of Physiotherapy, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Ashlea HillsDepartment of Physiotherapy, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Philipp VenetzDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Tessa BroadleyThe Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Anaïs Charles-NelsonThe Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Carol HodgsonThe Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe use of invasive life support in patients with a prolonged critical illness clearly saves lives but carries substantial risks, including intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICUAW) and long-term disability. Early mobilisation might improve outcomes, yet the evidence is conflicting and complicated by the lack of a responsive outcome measurement to detect change in critically ill patients' physical function and activity. The Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool (CPAx) is a valid and reliable instrument for patients at risk of ICUAW. However, its ability to measure change over time (responsiveness) and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) have not yet been rigorously investigated. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The primary objective of this prospective, international, multicentre, longitudinal cohort study is to investigate responsiveness and to establish the MCID of the CPAx during the 'intensive care unit (ICU) period', from ICU baseline to ICU discharge, and 'hospital period', from ICU to hospital discharge. Adults with any critical illness who are mechanically ventilated for at least 72 hours, expected to remain in ICU (≥48 hours) and being treated by a physiotherapist are eligible for study inclusion. Functional measurements, including the CPAx and a global rating of change (GRC) scale, will be collected during routine physiotherapy. Responsiveness will be evaluated primarily using the GRC as an anchor to distinguish changed from unchanged/deteriorated patients (criterion validity). As such, the magnitude of change will be analysed with receiver operating characteristics. Additionally, construct validity will be explored with correlation coefficients and effect sizes to confirm/reject a priori formulated hypotheses. MCID will be investigated with anchor-based and distribution-based methods. We plan to recruit 120 patients across three sites in Australia and Switzerland. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from each local ethics committee (Canton of Bern, Switzerland (2024-00346), Monash Health, Australia (HREC/106143/MonH-2024-438474(v3)), the Alfred, Australia (490/24)). The results will be disseminated through international/national conferences, peer-reviewed journals and social media. The high quality, rigorous testing of the CPAx could benefit researchers, clinicians and patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06419699.

Indexed as

Critical CareCritical IllnessMinimal Clinically Important DifferenceRespiration, ArtificialAdultEarly AmbulationHumansIntensive Care UnitsLongitudinal StudiesMulticenter Studies as TopicProspective StudiesResearch DesignAdult intensive & critical careExerciseINTENSIVE & CRITICAL CAREREHABILITATION MEDICINE

Identifiers

PMID40973373
PMCPMC12458801

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.