ArticleJournal of the Intensive Care Society2026
Aquatic therapy in invasively mechanically ventilated patients: A systematic review of safety, feasibility, and clinical considerations.
Article in Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Individuals receiving invasive mechanical ventilation experience mobility limitations and are at risk for intensive care unit-acquired weakness and functional decline. Hydrotherapy has been proposed as a potential adjunct within complex care and rehabilitation pathways, as the physical properties of water may facilitate supported movement and upright activity. However, its use in ventilator-dependent populations is often avoided due to safety and feasibility concerns. This systematic review aimed to synthesize the available evidence on the safety, feasibility, and clinical implementation of hydrotherapy in this population. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines and prospectively registered in PROSPERO. Six electronic databases were searched. Eligible studies included individuals receiving invasive mechanical ventilation who participated in clinically supervised hydrotherapy. Given heterogeneity in study designs and outcomes, a structured narrative synthesis was undertaken with emphasis on safety, feasibility, and ventilator management. Results: Six studies were included. Across all studies, hydrotherapy was consistently reported as safe, with no airway- or ventilation-related adverse events, including accidental extubation, tracheostomy displacement, ventilator disconnection, or water ingress. Feasibility was demonstrated in intensive care, rehabilitation, long-term ventilation, and pediatric prolonged mechanical ventilation settings when structured protocols, multidisciplinary staffing, and continuous physiological monitoring were employed. Reported outcomes included stable respiratory parameters, facilitated movement, and positive experiential responses. Conclusions: Although the evidence base is limited and predominantly descriptive, available findings suggest that hydrotherapy can be safely and feasibly delivered to selected individuals receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in well-resourced clinical environments.
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.