{"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}
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.
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.