ReviewCritical care (London, England)2025
Non-pharmacological post-intensive care interventions to improve patient outcome following critical illness: a scoping review.
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving long-term trajectories in very old survivors of intensive care: a narrative review.European geriatric medicine · 2026Review
- Transitional care gaps and caregiver burden after ICU discharge: a cross-sectional study of patient-caregiver dyads.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients discharged from intensive care units (ICU) commonly experience multiple problems in care during the acute hospital period. These can negatively impact their recovery and contribute to poor outcomes such as ICU readmission or in-hospital mortality. Many studies have aimed to address this through non-pharmacological interventions. However there has been no comprehensive synthesis of this literature. To improve care during the post-ICU in-hospital period, it is important to understand existing interventions and highlight priorities to guide future research. We therefore aimed to assess the extent of current literature relating to non-pharmacological interventions delivered to critical care survivors in hospital.
methodsWe systematically searched five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and CENTRAL) and grey literature to 4th February 2025. Search results were independently screened for eligibility by two reviewers at title, abstract and full text. Reports relating to non-pharmacological interventions delivered to adult patients in hospital following discharge from critical care were included. Study characteristics, intervention delivery and development, and outcomes were extracted using a formal data charting process.
resultsSearches yielded 41,242 reports, from which 202 met the inclusion criteria. The most common interventions were critical care outreach/follow-up (CCOT/FU) (n = 93, 46%), physical rehabilitation (n = 77, 38.1%), and nutrition (n = 36, 17.8%). A small proportion of reports described randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 31, 15.3%), of which few evaluated either CCOT/FU (n = 5, 16.1%) or multicomponent interventions (n = 6, 19.4%). Positive primary outcomes were reported by 51.6% (n = 16) of the RCTs (five of which were feasibility outcomes). Details of intervention implementation/training was included in only 17.6% (n = 18/102) of original studies. Interventions delivered by CCOT/FU included onward referrals, ordering investigations, family and patient support, and education provision.
conclusionsThis review provides a comprehensive summary of the current knowledge of non-pharmacological interventions delivered following discharge from critical care, to improve outcomes. Although this is a large body of literature, it is limited by a lack of RCTs, and uncommon reporting of intervention development, implementation or training. Multicomponent interventions and CCOT/FU showed promising initial results but were infrequently evaluated in clinical trials, which should be considered for future investigation.
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.