Helmar Bornemann-Cimenti, Johanna Lang, Sascha Hammer, Kordula Lang-Illievich, Sebastian Labenbacher, Stefan Neuwersch-Sommeregger, Christoph Klivinyi
{"title":"基于共识的重症监护后综合征评估建议:系统回顾。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Consensus-Based Recommendations for Assessing Post-Intensive Care Syndrome: A Systematic Review.
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.
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.