ArticleNeurocritical care2026
Mental Health Outcomes After Neurocritical Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Article in Neurocritical 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveIn this study, we sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of mental health outcomes in survivors of neurocritical illness.
methodsLiterature databases [PubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and PsycInfo] were searched for terms relating to critical illness, intensive care, and outcomes from January 1970 to June 2024. English-language studies of adults with critically illness with a primary neurological diagnosis were included if they reported on mental health outcomes [specifically, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress (PTS), or general mental health]. Data extraction was performed, in duplicate, for prespecified variables related to study outcomes. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to estimate pooled prevalence and symptom severity.
resultsOf more than 33,000 abstracts screened, 24 publications reported on mental health outcomes: 19 reported on depression outcomes, 11 on anxiety, 7 on PTS, and 8 on general mental health. The median [interquartile range (IQR)] time to first depression, anxiety, and/or PTS assessment was 3 (1.75, 12), 4.5 (1.1, 7.5), and 3 (0, 3) months, respectively. The most common assessment tools were the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Depression Subscale (HADS-D; n = 8) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Anxiety Subscale HADS-A (n = 8), and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (PCL-5)/Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist, Civilian Version (PCL-C) for PTS (n = 4). General mental health outcomes were studied using seven unique tools at a median (IQR) follow-up time of 3 (0.5, 6) months. Pooled depression prevalence [95% confidence interval (CI)] was 24% (20-29%) among publications using HADS-D and 26% (16-38%) in publications using any assessment tool. Pooled anxiety prevalence was 37% (21-56%) using HADS-A and was 32% (18-51%) using any assessment tool. PTS prevalence was 14% (8-21%). Heterogeneity of assessment tools precluded a pooled analysis of general mental health.
conclusionsThese findings highlight the burden of mental health symptoms following neurocritical care illness, with prevalences higher than the general population. These findings were impacted by substantial between-study heterogeneity-particularly in assessment tools and timing of evaluations-limiting precise prevalence estimation.
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.