The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The effect of early mobilization in critically ill patients: A meta‐analysis
Abstract
Background: The aim of this meta‐analysis was to assess if early mobilization and rehabilitation in the intensive care unit (ICU) could reduce ICU‐acquired weakness (ICU‐AW), improve functional recovery, improve muscle strength, shorten the length of ICU and hospital stays, and reduce the mortality rate. Methods: A comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SinoMed (Chinese BioMedical Literature Service System, China), and National Knowledge Infrastructure, China (CNKI) was performed. Results were expressed as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) or weight mean difference (WMD) with 95% CIs. Pooled estimates were calculated using a fixed‐effects or random‐effects model according to the heterogeneity among studies. Results: Fifteen randomized controlled trials involving a total of 1941 patients were included in this meta‐analysis. Pooled estimates suggested that early mobilization significantly reduced the incidence of ICU‐AW (RR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.26, 0.91; P = .025), shortened the length of ICU (WMD = −1.82 days, 95% CI: −2.88, −0.76; P = .001) and hospital (WMD = −3.90 days, 95% CI: −5.94, −1.85; P < .001) stays, and improved the Medical Research Council score (WMD = 4.47, 95% CI: 1.43, 7.52; P = .004) and Barthel Index score at hospital discharge (WMD = 21.44, 95% CI: 10.97, 31.91; P < .001). Moreover, early mobilization also decreased complications such as deep vein thrombosis (RR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.59; P = .006), ventilator‐associated pneumonia (RR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.63; P = .003), and pressure sores (RR = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.44; P = .001). However, early mobilization did not reduce the ICU mortality rate (RR = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.97, 1.76; P = .074), improve the handgrip strength (WMD = 4.03 kg, 95% CI: −0.68, 8.74; P = .094), and shorten the duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD = 0.20 days, 95% CI: −0.10, 0.50; P = .194). Conclusion: This study indicated that early mobilization was effective in preventing the occurrence of ICU‐AW, shortening the length of ICU and hospital stay, and improving the functional mobility. However, it had no effect on the ICU mortality rate and ventilator‐free days. Relevance to clinical practice: ICU‐AW is a common neuromuscular complication of critical illness, and it is predictive of adverse outcomes. Early mobilization of critically ill patients is a candidate intervention to reduce the incidence and severity of ICU‐AW. Some clinical studies have demonstrated this, whereas others found opposite results. The aim of our study is to assess if early mobilization and rehabilitation in the ICU could reduce the ICU‐AW, improve functional recovery, improve muscle strength, shorten length of ICU and hospital stay, and reduce the mortality rate.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 · Cited by 33,817
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Statistical Aspects of the Analysis of Data From Retrospective Studies of Disease
(1959) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/22.4.719 · Cited by 14,689
Metadata
- Authors
- Zang, K., Chen, B., Wang, M., Chen, D., Hui, L., Guo, S., Ji, T., & Shang, F.
- Venue
- Nursing in Critical Care
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-06-20
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 360-367
- ISSN
- 1362-1017 (ISSN-L)
- 1478-5153
- OpenAlex
- W2951221900
- Cited by
- 268
- References
- 37
- FWCI
- 16.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The effect of early mobilization in critically ill patients: A meta‐analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/nicc.12455
- The paper
- Zang, K., Chen, B., Wang, M., Chen, D., Hui, L., Guo, S., Ji, T., & Shang, F. (2020). The effect of early mobilization in critically ill patients: A meta‐analysis. Nursing in Critical Care. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12455
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.