临床研究中评估重症监护后综合征的最佳时机:范围审查和专家调查。

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Kohei Tanaka, Nobuto Nakanishi, Keibun Liu, Kyohei Miyamoto, Akira Kawauchi, Masatsugu Okamura, Sho Katayama, Yuki Iida, Yusuke Kawai, Junji Hatakeyama, Toru Hifumi, Takeshi Unoki, Daisuke Kawakami, Fumimasa Amaya, Kengo Obata, Hidenori Sumita, Tomoyuki Morisawa, Norihiko Tsuboi, Ryo Kozu, Shunsuke Takaki, Junpei Haruna, Kohei Ota, Yoshihisa Fujinami, Nobuyuki Nosaka, Kasumi Shirasaki, Shigeaki Inoue, Osamu Nishida, Kensuke Nakamura
{"title":"临床研究中评估重症监护后综合征的最佳时机:范围审查和专家调查。","authors":"Kohei Tanaka, Nobuto Nakanishi, Keibun Liu, Kyohei Miyamoto, Akira Kawauchi, Masatsugu Okamura, Sho Katayama, Yuki Iida, Yusuke Kawai, Junji Hatakeyama, Toru Hifumi, Takeshi Unoki, Daisuke Kawakami, Fumimasa Amaya, Kengo Obata, Hidenori Sumita, Tomoyuki Morisawa, Norihiko Tsuboi, Ryo Kozu, Shunsuke Takaki, Junpei Haruna, Kohei Ota, Yoshihisa Fujinami, Nobuyuki Nosaka, Kasumi Shirasaki, Shigeaki Inoue, Osamu Nishida, Kensuke Nakamura","doi":"10.1186/s40560-025-00817-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Since the concept of post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) was proposed, numerous studies have assessed patients and their family members. However, a wide range of assessment timings has been employed across previous studies. This study aimed to clarify how assessment timings have been implemented in existing PICS research through a scoping review, and to explore expert opinions on optimal assessment timing via an online survey.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a scoping review of studies assessing PICS-related outcomes, including physical, cognitive, and psychological impairments, as well as PICS in family members. Studies were retrieved from MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL, and screened by two independent pairs of reviewers. Eligible studies were published between January 2014 and December 2022. Studies lacking a clear description of assessment timing were excluded. We analyzed the reference point used to determine assessment schedules, the assessment time points, and their frequency. Additionally, an online questionnaire was administered to 23 members of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine PICS committee and working group members to collect expert opinions on these three aspects for clinical research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 657 studies were included. In prior studies, hospital discharge was the most commonly used reference point for determining assessment schedule (240 studies, 40%). However, ICU discharge was identified by experts as the ideal reference point (16 votes, 47%). The most frequently used assessment time points were 3 months (262, 23%), 6 months (212, 19%), and 12 months (206, 18%) post-discharge. Experts most commonly selected the period between 6 and 12 months as the optimal time point for assessment. While single assessments were most common in previous studies (337, 51%), experts considered three assessments to be ideal (12, 44%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study revealed notable discrepancies between the assessment timing reported in previous studies and the opinions of experts regarding optimal timing. Standardization of assessment timing in PICS research is warranted to enhance methodological consistency and comparability.</p>","PeriodicalId":16123,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intensive Care","volume":"13 1","pages":"45"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12359912/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimal timing for assessing post-intensive care syndrome in clinical research: a scoping review and expert survey.\",\"authors\":\"Kohei Tanaka, Nobuto Nakanishi, Keibun Liu, Kyohei Miyamoto, Akira Kawauchi, Masatsugu Okamura, Sho Katayama, Yuki Iida, Yusuke Kawai, Junji Hatakeyama, Toru Hifumi, Takeshi Unoki, Daisuke Kawakami, Fumimasa Amaya, Kengo Obata, Hidenori Sumita, Tomoyuki Morisawa, Norihiko Tsuboi, Ryo Kozu, Shunsuke Takaki, Junpei Haruna, Kohei Ota, Yoshihisa Fujinami, Nobuyuki Nosaka, Kasumi Shirasaki, Shigeaki Inoue, Osamu Nishida, Kensuke Nakamura\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40560-025-00817-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Since the concept of post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) was proposed, numerous studies have assessed patients and their family members. However, a wide range of assessment timings has been employed across previous studies. This study aimed to clarify how assessment timings have been implemented in existing PICS research through a scoping review, and to explore expert opinions on optimal assessment timing via an online survey.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a scoping review of studies assessing PICS-related outcomes, including physical, cognitive, and psychological impairments, as well as PICS in family members. Studies were retrieved from MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL, and screened by two independent pairs of reviewers. Eligible studies were published between January 2014 and December 2022. Studies lacking a clear description of assessment timing were excluded. We analyzed the reference point used to determine assessment schedules, the assessment time points, and their frequency. Additionally, an online questionnaire was administered to 23 members of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine PICS committee and working group members to collect expert opinions on these three aspects for clinical research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 657 studies were included. In prior studies, hospital discharge was the most commonly used reference point for determining assessment schedule (240 studies, 40%). However, ICU discharge was identified by experts as the ideal reference point (16 votes, 47%). The most frequently used assessment time points were 3 months (262, 23%), 6 months (212, 19%), and 12 months (206, 18%) post-discharge. Experts most commonly selected the period between 6 and 12 months as the optimal time point for assessment. While single assessments were most common in previous studies (337, 51%), experts considered three assessments to be ideal (12, 44%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study revealed notable discrepancies between the assessment timing reported in previous studies and the opinions of experts regarding optimal timing. Standardization of assessment timing in PICS research is warranted to enhance methodological consistency and comparability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16123,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Intensive Care\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"45\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12359912/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Intensive Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-025-00817-8\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-025-00817-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:自从重症监护后综合征(PICS)的概念被提出以来,许多研究对患者及其家属进行了评估。然而,在以往的研究中,评估时间的范围很广。本研究旨在通过范围审查澄清评估时间在现有PICS研究中的实施情况,并通过在线调查探讨专家对最佳评估时间的意见。方法:我们对评估PICS相关结果的研究进行了范围综述,包括身体、认知和心理损伤,以及家庭成员的PICS。研究从MEDLINE、CENTRAL和CINAHL检索,并由两对独立的审稿人筛选。符合条件的研究发表于2014年1月至2022年12月之间。缺乏评估时间清晰描述的研究被排除在外。我们分析了用于确定评估时间表的参考点、评估时间点和它们的频率。并对23名日本重症医学学会PICS委员会委员和工作组成员进行在线问卷调查,收集专家对这三方面的意见,用于临床研究。结果:共纳入657项研究。在以往的研究中,出院是确定评估计划最常用的参考点(240项研究,40%)。然而,专家们认为ICU出院是理想的参考点(16票,47%)。最常用的评估时间点为出院后3个月(262例,23%)、6个月(212例,19%)和12个月(206例,18%)。专家们通常选择6至12个月作为评估的最佳时间点。虽然单一评估在以前的研究中最常见(337,51%),但专家认为三次评估是理想的(12,44%)。结论:本研究揭示了以往研究报告的评估时机与专家关于最佳时机的意见存在显著差异。PICS研究中评估时间的标准化是必要的,以增强方法的一致性和可比性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Optimal timing for assessing post-intensive care syndrome in clinical research: a scoping review and expert survey.

Optimal timing for assessing post-intensive care syndrome in clinical research: a scoping review and expert survey.

Optimal timing for assessing post-intensive care syndrome in clinical research: a scoping review and expert survey.

Optimal timing for assessing post-intensive care syndrome in clinical research: a scoping review and expert survey.

Background: Since the concept of post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) was proposed, numerous studies have assessed patients and their family members. However, a wide range of assessment timings has been employed across previous studies. This study aimed to clarify how assessment timings have been implemented in existing PICS research through a scoping review, and to explore expert opinions on optimal assessment timing via an online survey.

Methods: We conducted a scoping review of studies assessing PICS-related outcomes, including physical, cognitive, and psychological impairments, as well as PICS in family members. Studies were retrieved from MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL, and screened by two independent pairs of reviewers. Eligible studies were published between January 2014 and December 2022. Studies lacking a clear description of assessment timing were excluded. We analyzed the reference point used to determine assessment schedules, the assessment time points, and their frequency. Additionally, an online questionnaire was administered to 23 members of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine PICS committee and working group members to collect expert opinions on these three aspects for clinical research.

Results: A total of 657 studies were included. In prior studies, hospital discharge was the most commonly used reference point for determining assessment schedule (240 studies, 40%). However, ICU discharge was identified by experts as the ideal reference point (16 votes, 47%). The most frequently used assessment time points were 3 months (262, 23%), 6 months (212, 19%), and 12 months (206, 18%) post-discharge. Experts most commonly selected the period between 6 and 12 months as the optimal time point for assessment. While single assessments were most common in previous studies (337, 51%), experts considered three assessments to be ideal (12, 44%).

Conclusions: This study revealed notable discrepancies between the assessment timing reported in previous studies and the opinions of experts regarding optimal timing. Standardization of assessment timing in PICS research is warranted to enhance methodological consistency and comparability.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Intensive Care
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine-Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
CiteScore
11.90
自引率
1.40%
发文量
51
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: "Journal of Intensive Care" is an open access journal dedicated to the comprehensive coverage of intensive care medicine, providing a platform for the latest research and clinical insights in this critical field. The journal covers a wide range of topics, including intensive and critical care, trauma and surgical intensive care, pediatric intensive care, acute and emergency medicine, perioperative medicine, resuscitation, infection control, and organ dysfunction. Recognizing the importance of cultural diversity in healthcare practices, "Journal of Intensive Care" also encourages submissions that explore and discuss the cultural aspects of intensive care, aiming to promote a more inclusive and culturally sensitive approach to patient care. By fostering a global exchange of knowledge and expertise, the journal contributes to the continuous improvement of intensive care practices worldwide.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信