ArticleJournal of rehabilitation medicine2025
A comprehensive evidence-based intervention programme significantly reduces intensive care unit-acquired weakness and improves functional recovery: a retrospective analysis.
Article in Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICU-AW) affects 25-50% of critically ill patients, resulting in prolonged hospitalization and impaired functional recovery. Despite recognition of its clinical importance, effective prevention and treatment strategies remain limited.
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of a comprehensive evidence-based intervention programme on ICU-AW incidence and functional outcomes compared with standard care.
methodsThis retrospective analysis conducted between May 2021 and December 2023 included 420 critically ill patients allocated to either an evidence-based intervention group (n = 200) receiving a structured programme incorporating early mobilization, respiratory rehabilitation, swallowing training, psychological support, and nutritional optimization, or a standard care group (n = 220). Primary outcomes included ICU-AW incidence and hospital length of stay. Secondary outcomes comprised MRC muscle strength scores, nutritional status (Subjective Global Assessment), and functional independence (Barthel Index).
resultsThe evidence-based intervention group demonstrated significantly lower ICU-AW incidence (32.5% vs 57.3%, p < 0.001) and shorter hospital stays (18.4 ± 6.2 days vs 25.7 ± 7.8 days, p < 0.001) compared with standard care. Post-intervention MRC scores were significantly higher in the evidence-based intervention group (50.4 ± 5.9 vs 44.2 ± 7.1, p < 0.001), representing a mean improvement of 7.3 points (95% CI: 6.2-8.4) compared with 1.9 points (95% CI: 1.2-2.6) in standard care. Nutritional status improved by at least one SGA grade in 56% of evidence-based intervention patients vs 28.6% of standard care patients (p < 0.001). Barthel Index scores increased substantially more in the evidence-based intervention group (32.3-point increase vs 13.4-point increase, p < 0.001), with 41% achieving scores > 75 compared with 16% in standard care (p < 0.001).
conclusionA comprehensive evidence-based intervention programme significantly reduces ICU-AW incidence and improves muscle strength, nutritional status, and functional outcomes in critically ill patients. This multimodal strategy offers promise for alleviating ICU-AW's burden and warrants broader clinical adoption.
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.