Consensus-Based Recommendations for Assessing Post-Intensive Care Syndrome: A Systematic Review.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Helmar Bornemann-Cimenti, Johanna Lang, Sascha Hammer, Kordula Lang-Illievich, Sebastian Labenbacher, Stefan Neuwersch-Sommeregger, Christoph Klivinyi
{"title":"Consensus-Based Recommendations for Assessing Post-Intensive Care Syndrome: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Helmar Bornemann-Cimenti, Johanna Lang, Sascha Hammer, Kordula Lang-Illievich, Sebastian Labenbacher, Stefan Neuwersch-Sommeregger, Christoph Klivinyi","doi":"10.3390/jcm14103595","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Post-intensive care syndrome encompasses physical, cognitive, and psychological impairments that persist in patients after discharge from an intensive care unit. There is considerable variation in the tools used for assessment. This systematic review aimed to summarize the consensus-based recommendations for assessing post-intensive care syndrome. <b>Methods:</b> A comprehensive literature search identified four consensus-based guidelines. A quality assessment carried out using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool demonstrated high methodological standards across all the included papers. <b>Results:</b> The guidelines consistently emphasize assessing cognition, mental health, and physical function as the core domains. However, there are notable differences in the specific tools recommended. Major et al. focused on physical examinations, while Mikkelsen et al. proposed a fundamental package of five tools covering the key domains. Spies et al. aimed for a pragmatic set of freely available instruments administrable within 30 min. Nakanishi et al. provided a detailed ranking of instruments for each domain. The availability of validated translations varied considerably across languages. Some tools developed specifically for post-intensive care syndrome were not considered by any consensus conference. <b>Conclusions:</b> Further work is needed to establish a universally accepted standard for assessing post-intensive care syndrome that considers practical implementation across diverse settings and languages.</p>","PeriodicalId":15533,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","volume":"14 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14103595","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Post-intensive care syndrome encompasses physical, cognitive, and psychological impairments that persist in patients after discharge from an intensive care unit. There is considerable variation in the tools used for assessment. This systematic review aimed to summarize the consensus-based recommendations for assessing post-intensive care syndrome. Methods: A comprehensive literature search identified four consensus-based guidelines. A quality assessment carried out using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool demonstrated high methodological standards across all the included papers. Results: The guidelines consistently emphasize assessing cognition, mental health, and physical function as the core domains. However, there are notable differences in the specific tools recommended. Major et al. focused on physical examinations, while Mikkelsen et al. proposed a fundamental package of five tools covering the key domains. Spies et al. aimed for a pragmatic set of freely available instruments administrable within 30 min. Nakanishi et al. provided a detailed ranking of instruments for each domain. The availability of validated translations varied considerably across languages. Some tools developed specifically for post-intensive care syndrome were not considered by any consensus conference. Conclusions: Further work is needed to establish a universally accepted standard for assessing post-intensive care syndrome that considers practical implementation across diverse settings and languages.

基于共识的重症监护后综合征评估建议:系统回顾。
背景:重症监护后综合征包括患者从重症监护病房出院后持续存在的身体、认知和心理障碍。用于评估的工具有相当大的差异。本系统综述旨在总结基于共识的重症监护后综合征评估建议。方法:全面的文献检索确定了四个基于共识的指南。使用研究和评估指南II工具进行的质量评估表明,所有纳入的论文都具有很高的方法标准。结果:该指南始终强调评估认知、心理健康和身体功能为核心领域。但是,在推荐的特定工具中存在显著差异。Major等人专注于身体检查,而Mikkelsen等人则提出了涵盖关键领域的五个基本工具包。Spies等人的目标是在30分钟内提供一套实用的可免费使用的仪器。Nakanishi等人提供了每个领域仪器的详细排名。有效翻译的可用性因语言而异。一些专门为重症监护后综合征开发的工具没有被任何共识会议考虑。结论:需要进一步的工作来建立一个普遍接受的标准来评估重症监护后综合征,并考虑在不同环境和语言中的实际实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Journal of Clinical Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
6468
审稿时长
16.32 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Medicine (ISSN 2077-0383), is an international scientific open access journal, providing a platform for advances in health care/clinical practices, the study of direct observation of patients and general medical research. This multi-disciplinary journal is aimed at a wide audience of medical researchers and healthcare professionals. Unique features of this journal: manuscripts regarding original research and ideas will be particularly welcomed.JCM also accepts reviews, communications, and short notes. There is no limit to publication length: our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信