Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 262

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Early rehabilitation to prevent postintensive care syndrome in patients with critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Fuke, Ryota, Hifumi, Toru, Kondo, Yutaka, Hatakeyama, Junji, Takei, Tetsuhiro, Yamakawa, Kazuma, Inoue, Shigeaki, Nishida, Osamu·2018·BMJ Open

Abstract

Introduction: We examined the effectiveness of early rehabilitation for the prevention of postintensive care syndrome (PICS), characterised by an impaired physical, cognitive or mental health status, among survivors of critical illness. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of several databases (Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and a manual search to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of early rehabilitation versus no early rehabilitation or standard care for the prevention of PICS. The primary outcomes were short-term physical-related, cognitive-related and mental health-related outcomes assessed during hospitalisation. The secondary outcomes were the standardised, long-term health-related quality of life scores (EuroQol 5 Dimension (EQ5D) and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Function Scale (SF-36 PF)). We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the quality of evidence (QoE). Results: Six RCTs selected from 5105 screened abstracts were included. Early rehabilitation significantly improved short-term physical-related outcomes, as indicated by an increased Medical Research Council scale score (standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.38, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.66, p=0.009) (QoE: low) and a decreased incidence of intensive care unit-acquired weakness (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.82, p=0.01, QoE: low), compared with standard care or no early rehabilitation. However, the two groups did not differ in terms of cognitive-related delirium-free days (SMD: −0.02, 95% CI −0.23 to 0.20, QoE: low) and the mental health-related Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score (OR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.12, QoE: low). Early rehabilitation did not improve the long-term outcomes of PICS as characterised by EQ5D and SF-36 PF. Conclusions: Early rehabilitation improved only short-term physical-related outcomes in patients with critical illness. Additional large RCTs are needed.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019998

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 10 references

Cited by

See all 262

Metadata

Authors
Fuke, R., Hifumi, T., Kondo, Y., Hatakeyama, J., Takei, T., Yamakawa, K., Inoue, S., & Nishida, O.
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2018-05
Volume
8
Issue
5
Pages
e019998
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2800935289
Cited by
262
References
10
FWCI
4.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Early rehabilitation to prevent postintensive care syndrome in patients with critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019998
The paper
Fuke, R., Hifumi, T., Kondo, Y., Hatakeyama, J., Takei, T., Yamakawa, K., Inoue, S., & Nishida, O. (2018). Early rehabilitation to prevent postintensive care syndrome in patients with critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019998

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.