ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Dose reporting and dose-stratified effects of early mobilization in mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review 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: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate how early mobilization dose is reported and to explore dose-stratified effects of early mobilization on functional recovery, clinical outcomes, diaphragmatic function, and safety in mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients. Methods: Eight electronic databases were searched from inception to May 2026. Randomized controlled trials involving mechanically ventilated adult intensive care unit patients were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Early mobilization interventions were classified as low-, moderate-, or high-dose according to frequency, duration, and intensity. Results: Thirty-one randomized controlled trials involving 3,498 participants were included. Overall, early mobilization improved functional and selected clinical outcomes, without significantly affecting mortality [RR = 1.13, 95% CI (0.89, 1.42), Conclusions: Incomplete and inconsistent reporting of mobilization dose may partly explain the variability in meta-analytic findings across early mobilization trials. Moderate- to high-dose mobilization appears to be associated with more favorable outcomes when tailored to clinical resources and patient tolerance. Given the substantial heterogeneity across studies, future trials should standardize the definition and reporting of mobilization dose to support individualized and resource-optimized mobilization strategies. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, CRD420261416276.
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.