ArticleAnnals of intensive care2026
Early mobilization with or without cycloergometry in patients with septic shock in Intensive Care Unit: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Acquired weakness in intensive care unit (ICU) contributes to increased mechanical ventilation (MV) and morbi-mortality. Cycloergometry could be added to standard physiotherapy (SP). The objective of the study was to determine the effect of early mobilization with cycloergometry and SP on ICU length of stay (LOS). Methods: This prospective, randomized, multicenter study included sedated-ventilated patients admitted to ICU for septic shock. ICU LOS was assessed in two phases. Phase I: from hemodynamic stability to first awakening, and phase II: from first awakening to ICU discharge. In each phase, patients were randomized to an intervention group: cycloergometry and SP (C+SP), or a control group (SP), generating four groups in total. In the intervention group, patients received a daily session of 20 min of cycloergometry in addition to SP. Results: From December 2016 to March 2020, 119 patients were included (instead of 234 planned). Mean SAPSII score at ICU admission was 59.5. Characteristics at baseline were similar. When phase I and phase II were analyzed separately, no statistical difference was observed between groups in time to first awakening or time to ICU discharge (phase I: C+SP 4 [IQR 2-7] days vs SP 4 [IQR 2-8] days, p = 0.6, and phase II: C+SP 9 [IQR 6-15] days vs SP 12 [IQR 6-28] days, p = 0.3).In post-hoc analysis when phase I and phase II were considered together, the median duration of MV was significantly longer in patients who received no cycloergometry (14 [IQR 8-60] days vs 9 [IQR 6-17] days, p = 0.04). Moreover, a trend was observed for a shorter time from hemodynamic stability to ICU discharge in patients who received cycloergometry in at least one phase: C+SP in phase I and/or phase II (13 [IQR 8-33] days) vs SP only (20 [IQR 11-66] days), p = 0.052. Conclusion: Although the planned number of patients could not be included, a non-significant signal for decreased ICU LOS was observed in patients who received cycloergometry in at least one phase, in post-hoc analysis. Furthermore, cycloergometry was associated with a significantly lower duration of artificial ventilation.
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.