SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Comparative effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions on health-related quality of life in ICU patients: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients often experience long-term physical and psychological impairments that reduce health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) are increasingly used, but their comparative effectiveness remains uncertain. Objective: To systematically evaluate NPIs for improving HRQoL in ICU patients using a network meta-analysis (NMA), following PICOS and PRISMA-NMA guidelines. Design: Systematic review and NMA with a pre-registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42024626250). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EBSCO to November 2024 for randomized controlled trials enrolling adult ICU patients, comparing NPIs with usual care, placebo, or other NPIs. Eligible studies reported validated HRQoL outcomes (SF-36, SF-12, or EQ-5D). Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment. NMA was conducted using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 17.0. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and interventions were ranked by surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Only published, peer-reviewed data were included. Results: Nineteen RCTs (2,654 patients, 12 NPIs) met inclusion criteria. For overall HRQoL, ICU diary (SMD: -0.30; 95% CI: -0.71-0.10), cognitive therapy plus mobile application (APP+CT) (SMD: -0.26; 95% CI: -0.85-0.33), and electrical muscle stimulation plus physical activity (EMS + PA) (SMD: -0.06; 95% CI: -0.72-0.59) showed the highest SUCRA probabilities. For physical component summary (PCS), the ABCDE bundle (SMD: -0.50; 95% CI: -1.61-0.60) and structured PA (SMD: 0.08; 95% CI: -0.89-1.06) ranked highest. For mental component summary (MCS), the ABCDE bundle (SMD: -0.43; 95% CI: -1.33-0.46) and application-based cognitive therapy (SMD: -0.18; 95% CI: -0.92-0.55) had the greatest probability of benefit. However, none reached statistical significance, as all confidence intervals crossed zero; SUCRA rankings reflect relative probability rather than confirmed effectiveness. Conclusion: This NMA found no intervention with statistically significant superiority. ICU diary and the ABCDE bundle appear most promising, yet findings must be interpreted cautiously. Further high quality, multicenter RCTs are needed to validate these results and assess long term outcomes. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024626250. URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024626250.
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.