Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 444

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Exercise rehabilitation for patients with critical illness: a randomized controlled trial with 12 months of follow-up

Open access
Denehy, Linda, Skinner, Elizabeth H, Edbrooke, Lara, Haines, Kimberley, Warrillow, Stephen, Hawthorne, Graeme, Gough, Karla, Hoorn, Steven Vander, Morris, Meg E, Berney, Sue·2013·Critical Care

Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of this trial was to investigate the effectiveness of an exercise rehabilitation program commencing during ICU admission and continuing into the outpatient setting compared with usual care on physical function and health-related quality of life in ICU survivors. Methods: We conducted a single-center, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial. One hundred and fifty participants were stratified and randomized to receive usual care or intervention if they were in the ICU for 5 days or more and had no permanent neurological insult. The intervention group received intensive exercises in the ICU and the ward and as outpatients. Participants were assessed at recruitment, ICU admission, hospital discharge and at 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-up. Physical function was evaluated using the Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) (primary outcome), the Timed Up and Go Test and the Physical Function in ICU Test. Patient-reported outcomes were measured using the Short Form 36 Health Survey, version 2 (SF-36v2) and Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) Instrument. Data were analyzed using mixed models. Results: The a priori enrollment goal was not reached. There were no between-group differences in demographic and hospital data, including acuity and length of acute hospital stay (LOS) (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score: 21 vs 19; hospital LOS: 20 vs 24 days). No significant differences were found for the primary outcome of 6MWT or any other outcomes at 12 months after ICU discharge. However, exploratory analyses showed the rate of change over time and mean between-group differences in 6MWT from first assessment were greater in the intervention group. Conclusions: Further research examining the trajectory of improvement with rehabilitation is warranted in this population. Trial registration: The trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12605000776606.

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 · 10.1186/cc12835

Cites

42 of 42 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 42 references

Cited by

See all 444

Metadata

Authors
Denehy, L., Skinner, E. H., Edbrooke, L., Haines, K., Warrillow, S., Hawthorne, G., Gough, K., Hoorn, S. V., Morris, M. E., & Berney, S.
Venue
Critical Care
Published
2013-07-24
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
R156-R156
ISSN
1364-8535 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2158881221
Cited by
444
References
42
FWCI
25.02
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: Exercise rehabilitation for patients with critical illness: a randomized controlled trial with 12 months of follow-up. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/cc12835
The paper
Denehy, L., Skinner, E. H., Edbrooke, L., Haines, K., Warrillow, S., Hawthorne, G., Gough, K., Hoorn, S. V., Morris, M. E., & Berney, S. (2013). Exercise rehabilitation for patients with critical illness: a randomized controlled trial with 12 months of follow-up. Critical Care. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc12835

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.