Physical rehabilitation interventions in the intensive care unit: a scoping review of 117 studies
Abstract Background Physical rehabilitation (PR) interventions in the intensive care unit (ICU) can improve patients’ functional outcomes, yet systematic reviews identified discordant effects and poor reporting. We conducted a scoping review to determine the extent of ICU PR interventions and how th...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2018-12-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Intensive Care |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40560-018-0349-x |
| _version_ | 1818562338350956544 |
|---|---|
| author | Julie C. Reid Janelle Unger Devin McCaskell Laura Childerhose David J. Zorko Michelle E. Kho |
| author_facet | Julie C. Reid Janelle Unger Devin McCaskell Laura Childerhose David J. Zorko Michelle E. Kho |
| author_sort | Julie C. Reid |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Physical rehabilitation (PR) interventions in the intensive care unit (ICU) can improve patients’ functional outcomes, yet systematic reviews identified discordant effects and poor reporting. We conducted a scoping review to determine the extent of ICU PR interventions and how they were reported and measured. Methods We searched five databases from inception to December 2016 for prospective studies evaluating adult ICU PR interventions. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for inclusion. We assessed completeness of reporting using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, or Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence guidelines, as appropriate. For planned PR interventions, we evaluated reporting with the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) and assessed intervention and control groups separately. We calculated completeness of reporting scores for each study; scores represented the proportion of reported items. We compared reporting between groups using Kruskal-Wallis with Bonferroni corrections and t tests, α = 0.05. Results We screened 61,774 unique citations, reviewed 1429 full-text publications, and included 117: 39 randomized trials, 30 case series, 9 two-group comparison, 14 before-after, and 25 cohort. Interventions included neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) (14.5%), passive/active exercises (15.4%), cycling (6.8%), progressive mobility (32.5%), and multicomponent (29.9%). The median (first,third quartiles) study reporting score was 75.9% (62.5, 86.7) with no significant differences between reporting guidelines. Of 87 planned intervention studies, the median CERT score was 55.6%(44.7,75.0); cycling had the highest (85.0%(62.2,93.8)), and NMES and multicomponent the lowest (50.0% (39.5, 70.3) and 50.0% (41.5, 58.8), respectively) scores. Authors reported intervention groups better than controls (p < 0.001). Conclusions We identified important reporting deficiencies in ICU PR interventions, limiting clinical implementation and future trial development. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-14T01:02:23Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-d4e03f7ef2714d8d98e31799552782eb |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2052-0492 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-14T01:02:23Z |
| publishDate | 2018-12-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Intensive Care |
| spelling | doaj.art-d4e03f7ef2714d8d98e31799552782eb2022-12-21T23:23:11ZengBMCJournal of Intensive Care2052-04922018-12-016111210.1186/s40560-018-0349-xPhysical rehabilitation interventions in the intensive care unit: a scoping review of 117 studiesJulie C. Reid0Janelle Unger1Devin McCaskell2Laura Childerhose3David J. Zorko4Michelle E. Kho5Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Institute of Applied Health SciencesRehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Rehabilitation Sciences BuildingDepartment of Physiotherapy, St. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonFaculty of Health Sciences, School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Institute of Applied Health SciencesDepartment of Pediatrics, McMaster UniversityFaculty of Health Sciences, School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Institute of Applied Health SciencesAbstract Background Physical rehabilitation (PR) interventions in the intensive care unit (ICU) can improve patients’ functional outcomes, yet systematic reviews identified discordant effects and poor reporting. We conducted a scoping review to determine the extent of ICU PR interventions and how they were reported and measured. Methods We searched five databases from inception to December 2016 for prospective studies evaluating adult ICU PR interventions. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for inclusion. We assessed completeness of reporting using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, or Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence guidelines, as appropriate. For planned PR interventions, we evaluated reporting with the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) and assessed intervention and control groups separately. We calculated completeness of reporting scores for each study; scores represented the proportion of reported items. We compared reporting between groups using Kruskal-Wallis with Bonferroni corrections and t tests, α = 0.05. Results We screened 61,774 unique citations, reviewed 1429 full-text publications, and included 117: 39 randomized trials, 30 case series, 9 two-group comparison, 14 before-after, and 25 cohort. Interventions included neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) (14.5%), passive/active exercises (15.4%), cycling (6.8%), progressive mobility (32.5%), and multicomponent (29.9%). The median (first,third quartiles) study reporting score was 75.9% (62.5, 86.7) with no significant differences between reporting guidelines. Of 87 planned intervention studies, the median CERT score was 55.6%(44.7,75.0); cycling had the highest (85.0%(62.2,93.8)), and NMES and multicomponent the lowest (50.0% (39.5, 70.3) and 50.0% (41.5, 58.8), respectively) scores. Authors reported intervention groups better than controls (p < 0.001). Conclusions We identified important reporting deficiencies in ICU PR interventions, limiting clinical implementation and future trial development.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40560-018-0349-xRehabilitationCritical careCritical illnessRespiration, artificialEarly ambulation |
| spellingShingle | Julie C. Reid Janelle Unger Devin McCaskell Laura Childerhose David J. Zorko Michelle E. Kho Physical rehabilitation interventions in the intensive care unit: a scoping review of 117 studies Journal of Intensive Care Rehabilitation Critical care Critical illness Respiration, artificial Early ambulation |
| title | Physical rehabilitation interventions in the intensive care unit: a scoping review of 117 studies |
| title_full | Physical rehabilitation interventions in the intensive care unit: a scoping review of 117 studies |
| title_fullStr | Physical rehabilitation interventions in the intensive care unit: a scoping review of 117 studies |
| title_full_unstemmed | Physical rehabilitation interventions in the intensive care unit: a scoping review of 117 studies |
| title_short | Physical rehabilitation interventions in the intensive care unit: a scoping review of 117 studies |
| title_sort | physical rehabilitation interventions in the intensive care unit a scoping review of 117 studies |
| topic | Rehabilitation Critical care Critical illness Respiration, artificial Early ambulation |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40560-018-0349-x |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT juliecreid physicalrehabilitationinterventionsintheintensivecareunitascopingreviewof117studies AT janelleunger physicalrehabilitationinterventionsintheintensivecareunitascopingreviewof117studies AT devinmccaskell physicalrehabilitationinterventionsintheintensivecareunitascopingreviewof117studies AT laurachilderhose physicalrehabilitationinterventionsintheintensivecareunitascopingreviewof117studies AT davidjzorko physicalrehabilitationinterventionsintheintensivecareunitascopingreviewof117studies AT michelleekho physicalrehabilitationinterventionsintheintensivecareunitascopingreviewof117studies |