ArticleCritical care (London, England)2025
Intermediate Care Unit performance being properly assessed?
Article in Critical care (London, England), 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
Intermediate Care Units (ImCU) are worldwide considered as an intermediate setting of care between standard wards and intensive care units (ICU), specifically addressed to critically ill patients admitted from Emergency Departments, stepping down from ICUs or stepping up from general wards. ImCU formats vary considerably between institutions, missing univocal criteria of where they should be placed, how be formatted and staffed, what monitoring and treatments delivered, which patients admitted, and when discharged. Many published studies focused primarily on mortality as the main variable of interest, while the effects of ImCU implementations on healthcare costs, hospital governance and comprehensive inpatient outcomes remain controversial. A consensus on which measures should be most accurate and based on evidence is still lacking. Appropriate quality-of-care key indicators should concern structures, processes, outcomes and their relationships. The development of a multi-level framework to assess ImCU performance, tailored on resources and management of each specific reality, should consider their functional role on hospital macro-systems, warranting both by patient-level and system-level objectives to ensure effective benchmarking and to provide a substantial support to clinical practice.
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.