Cargando…

Comparator Groups in ICU-Based Studies of Physical Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review of 125 Studies

To characterize comparator groups (CGs) in ICU-based studies of physical rehabilitation (PR), including the type, content, and reporting. DATA SOURCES: We followed a five-stage scoping review methodology, searching five databases from inception to June 30, 2022. Study selection and data extraction w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: O’Grady, Heather K., Reid, Julie C., Farley, Christopher, Hanna, Quincy E. B., Unger, Janelle, Zorko, David J., Bosch, Jackie, Turkstra, Lyn S., Kho, Michelle E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10171473/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37181539
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000917
_version_ 1785039424087654400
author O’Grady, Heather K.
Reid, Julie C.
Farley, Christopher
Hanna, Quincy E. B.
Unger, Janelle
Zorko, David J.
Bosch, Jackie
Turkstra, Lyn S.
Kho, Michelle E.
author_facet O’Grady, Heather K.
Reid, Julie C.
Farley, Christopher
Hanna, Quincy E. B.
Unger, Janelle
Zorko, David J.
Bosch, Jackie
Turkstra, Lyn S.
Kho, Michelle E.
author_sort O’Grady, Heather K.
collection PubMed
description To characterize comparator groups (CGs) in ICU-based studies of physical rehabilitation (PR), including the type, content, and reporting. DATA SOURCES: We followed a five-stage scoping review methodology, searching five databases from inception to June 30, 2022. Study selection and data extraction were completed independently, in duplicate. STUDY SELECTION: We screened studies by title and abstract, then full-text. We included prospective studies with greater than or equal to two arms enrolling mechanically ventilated adults (≥ 18 yr), with any planned PR intervention initiated in the ICU. DATA EXTRACTION: We conducted a quantitative content analysis of authors’ description of CG type and content. We categorized similar CG types (e.g., usual care), classified content into unique activities (e.g., positioning), and summarized these data using counts (proportions). We assessed reporting using Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT; proportion of reported items/total applicable). DATA SYNTHESIS: One hundred twenty-five studies were included, representing 127 CGs. PR was planned in 112 CGs (88.2%; 110 studies), representing four types: usual care (n = 81, 63.8%), alternative treatment than usual care (e.g., different from intervention; n = 18, 14.2%), alternative treatment plus usual care (n = 7, 5.5%), and sham (n = 6, 4.7%). Of 112 CGs with planned PR, 90 CGs (88 studies) reported 60 unique activities, most commonly passive range of motion (n = 47, 52.2%). The remaining 22 CGs (19.6%; 22 studies) reported vague descriptions. PR was not planned in 12 CGs (9.5%; 12 studies), and three CGs (2.4%; three studies) reported no details. Studies reported a median (Q1–Q3) of 46.6% (25.0–73.3%) CERT items. Overall, 20.0% of studies reported no detail to understand planned CG activities. CONCLUSIONS: The most common type of CG was usual care. We identified heterogeneity in planned activities and CERT reporting deficiencies. Our results could help guide the selection, design, and reporting of CGs in future ICU-based PR studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10171473
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101714732023-05-11 Comparator Groups in ICU-Based Studies of Physical Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review of 125 Studies O’Grady, Heather K. Reid, Julie C. Farley, Christopher Hanna, Quincy E. B. Unger, Janelle Zorko, David J. Bosch, Jackie Turkstra, Lyn S. Kho, Michelle E. Crit Care Explor Review Article To characterize comparator groups (CGs) in ICU-based studies of physical rehabilitation (PR), including the type, content, and reporting. DATA SOURCES: We followed a five-stage scoping review methodology, searching five databases from inception to June 30, 2022. Study selection and data extraction were completed independently, in duplicate. STUDY SELECTION: We screened studies by title and abstract, then full-text. We included prospective studies with greater than or equal to two arms enrolling mechanically ventilated adults (≥ 18 yr), with any planned PR intervention initiated in the ICU. DATA EXTRACTION: We conducted a quantitative content analysis of authors’ description of CG type and content. We categorized similar CG types (e.g., usual care), classified content into unique activities (e.g., positioning), and summarized these data using counts (proportions). We assessed reporting using Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT; proportion of reported items/total applicable). DATA SYNTHESIS: One hundred twenty-five studies were included, representing 127 CGs. PR was planned in 112 CGs (88.2%; 110 studies), representing four types: usual care (n = 81, 63.8%), alternative treatment than usual care (e.g., different from intervention; n = 18, 14.2%), alternative treatment plus usual care (n = 7, 5.5%), and sham (n = 6, 4.7%). Of 112 CGs with planned PR, 90 CGs (88 studies) reported 60 unique activities, most commonly passive range of motion (n = 47, 52.2%). The remaining 22 CGs (19.6%; 22 studies) reported vague descriptions. PR was not planned in 12 CGs (9.5%; 12 studies), and three CGs (2.4%; three studies) reported no details. Studies reported a median (Q1–Q3) of 46.6% (25.0–73.3%) CERT items. Overall, 20.0% of studies reported no detail to understand planned CG activities. CONCLUSIONS: The most common type of CG was usual care. We identified heterogeneity in planned activities and CERT reporting deficiencies. Our results could help guide the selection, design, and reporting of CGs in future ICU-based PR studies. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2023-05-09 /pmc/articles/PMC10171473/ /pubmed/37181539 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000917 Text en Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Review Article
O’Grady, Heather K.
Reid, Julie C.
Farley, Christopher
Hanna, Quincy E. B.
Unger, Janelle
Zorko, David J.
Bosch, Jackie
Turkstra, Lyn S.
Kho, Michelle E.
Comparator Groups in ICU-Based Studies of Physical Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review of 125 Studies
title Comparator Groups in ICU-Based Studies of Physical Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review of 125 Studies
title_full Comparator Groups in ICU-Based Studies of Physical Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review of 125 Studies
title_fullStr Comparator Groups in ICU-Based Studies of Physical Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review of 125 Studies
title_full_unstemmed Comparator Groups in ICU-Based Studies of Physical Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review of 125 Studies
title_short Comparator Groups in ICU-Based Studies of Physical Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review of 125 Studies
title_sort comparator groups in icu-based studies of physical rehabilitation: a scoping review of 125 studies
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10171473/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37181539
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000917
work_keys_str_mv AT ogradyheatherk comparatorgroupsinicubasedstudiesofphysicalrehabilitationascopingreviewof125studies
AT reidjuliec comparatorgroupsinicubasedstudiesofphysicalrehabilitationascopingreviewof125studies
AT farleychristopher comparatorgroupsinicubasedstudiesofphysicalrehabilitationascopingreviewof125studies
AT hannaquincyeb comparatorgroupsinicubasedstudiesofphysicalrehabilitationascopingreviewof125studies
AT ungerjanelle comparatorgroupsinicubasedstudiesofphysicalrehabilitationascopingreviewof125studies
AT zorkodavidj comparatorgroupsinicubasedstudiesofphysicalrehabilitationascopingreviewof125studies
AT boschjackie comparatorgroupsinicubasedstudiesofphysicalrehabilitationascopingreviewof125studies
AT turkstralyns comparatorgroupsinicubasedstudiesofphysicalrehabilitationascopingreviewof125studies
AT khomichellee comparatorgroupsinicubasedstudiesofphysicalrehabilitationascopingreviewof125studies