ArticleCritical care science2026
Safety recommendations on laboratory and blood count values for early mobilization in critically ill adults: an expert consensus.
Article in Critical care science, 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
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although early mobilization is a cornerstone of modern critical care for reducing intensive care unit-acquired weakness, the duration of mechanical ventilation, and length of stay, its implementation remains highly variable due to the absence of standardized laboratory criteria to guide clinical decision-making. Therefore, this study aimed to generate safety recommendations regarding laboratory and blood count values to be considered prior to initiating early mobilization in critically ill adults, both with and without invasive supports, across different clinical conditions. To address this evidence gap, a modified Delphi process was conducted with 24 highly experienced intensive care unit staff, including physiotherapists, physicians, and nurses. All panelists met strict criteria related to clinical expertise, advanced training, and scientific productivity. Over eight iterative rounds, the panel achieved at least 85% agreement on 119 items across six clinical domains: respiratory, cardiovascular, renal, surgical, hematological/immunological, and neurological. Key laboratory parameters considered included hemoglobin, platelets, lactate, glucose, international normalized ratio, acid-base state (pH), and potassium in selected clinical contexts. The consensus also provides novel guidance in two previously underexplored areas: first, mobilization during blood product transfusions, recommending postponement of early mobilization until transfusion completion; and second, the importance of dynamic trends in routine laboratory tests, identifying clinically meaningful declines in hemoglobin: ≥ 2g/dL/24 hours and platelets: ≥ 20% within 24 hours as contraindications to mobilization. This consensus offers a pragmatic framework that has the potential to reduce interprofessional variability, enhance patient safety, and inform the development of local and national protocols, including in resource-limited settings. Nonetheless, prospective validation across different healthcare contexts is required to confirm its clinical impact and generalizability.
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.