ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Impact of virtual ICU implementation on clinical outcomes across multiple critical care units: A before-and-after study.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Designing a hybrid surgical ICU to avoid intrahospital transport in selected critically Ill patients: the CUHK-SZ institutional concept.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2026Article
- Intelligent Real-Time Healthcare and Biomedical Monitoring Systems: A Narrative Review of AI, IoT, and Emerging Technologies.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Smart Cardiac ICU: Digital Integration, Predictive Analytics, and Perioperative Inflammation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Virtual intensive care units (vICUs) provide continuous remote monitoring and support for critically ill patients. Increasing patient complexity and staffing shortages have driven interest in vICUs, but evidence of their impact on clinical outcomes is limited. This study evaluated the effect of vICU implementation across critical care units in a large academic medical center. We conducted a before-and-after study comparing outcomes during the initial vICU implementation period (October 2022-April 2023) and the established program period (October 2023-April 2024), with a 6-month washout interval. Adult patients from a multispecialty surgical intensive care unit (ICU), neurocritical care unit, and ICU step-down unit were included if they had ICU stays longer than 6 h, hospital stays under 30 days, and mechanical ventilation for at least 12 h. The primary outcome was ICU length of stay, with secondary outcomes including hospital stay, ventilation time, vasopressor use, readmissions, and mortality. Among 530 patients (266 implementation, 264 established), ICU length of stay decreased from 232 to 198 h (p=0.011), ventilation time from 110 to 90 h (p=0.044), and vasopressor use for more than 12 h from 55% to 43% (p=0.007). Hospital stay, mortality, and readmission rates were unchanged. Subgroup analysis showed the greatest improvements in the surgical ICU, with reductions in ICU stay, ventilation time, and vasopressor use. These improvements may reflect earlier recognition of deterioration, better care coordination, and timely withdrawal of intensive therapies. Variation across units highlights the need to tailor vICU integration strategies to specific clinical workflows. These findings suggest that vICU implementation is feasible and may enhance critical care efficiency, though further multi-center studies are needed to determine generalizability and to assess patient-centered and economic outcomes.
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.