Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 402

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Safety of Patient Mobilization and Rehabilitation in the Intensive Care Unit. Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Nydahl, Peter, Sricharoenchai, Thiti, Chandra, Saurabh, Kundt, Firuzan Sari, Huang, Minxuan, Fischill, Magdalena, Needham, Dale M.·2017·Annals of the American Thoracic Society

Abstract

Background: Early mobilization and rehabilitation of patients in intensive care units (ICUs) may improve physical function, and reduce the duration of delirium, mechanical ventilation, and ICU length of stay. However, safety concerns are an important barrier to widespread implementation. Objectives: To synthesize safety data regarding patient mobilization and rehabilitation in the ICU, including falls, removal of endotracheal tubes, removal or dysfunction of intravascular catheters, removal of other catheters/tubes, cardiac arrest, hemodynamic changes, and desaturation. Data Sources: Systematic literature review, including searches of five databases. Eligible studies evaluated patients who received mobilization-related interventions in the ICU. Exclusion criteria included: (1) case series with fewer than 10 patients; (2) majority of patients under 18 years of age; and (3) data not reported to permit calculation of incidence of safety events. Data Extraction: Number of patients, mobilization/rehabilitation sessions, potential safety events, and events with negative consequences (e.g., requiring intervention or additional therapy). Synthesis: Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 statistics, and bias assessed by the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias assessment. The literature search identified 20,670 titles. There were 48 eligible publications evaluating 7,546 patients, with 583 potential safety events occurring in 22,351 mobilization/rehabilitation sessions. There was a total of 583 (2.6%) potential safety events with heterogeneity in the definitions for these events. For the safety event types that could be meta-analyzed, pooled incidences per 1,000 mobilization/rehabilitation sessions (95% confidence interval), were: hemodynamic changes, 3.8 (1.3–11.4), and desaturation, 1.9 (0.9–4.3). A total of 24 studies of 3,404 patients reported on any consequences of potential safety events (e.g., needing to increase dose of vasopressor due to mobility-related hypotension), with a frequency of 0.6% in 14,398 mobilization/rehabilitation sessions. Conclusions: Patient mobilization and physical rehabilitation in the ICU appears safe, with a low incidence of potential safety events, and only rare events having any consequences for patient management. Heterogeneity in the definition of safety events across studies emphasizes the importance of implementing existing consensus-based definitions.

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 · 10.1513/annalsats.201611-843sr

Cites

9 of 9 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 9 references

Cited by

See all 402

Metadata

Authors
Nydahl, P., Sricharoenchai, T., Chandra, S., Kundt, F. S., Huang, M., Fischill, M., & Needham, D. M.
Venue
Annals of the American Thoracic Society
Published
2017-05-01
Volume
14
Issue
5
Pages
766-777
ISSN
  • 2325-6621 (ISSN-L)
  • 2329-6933
OpenAlex
W2591080553
Cited by
402
References
9
FWCI
9.53
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: Safety of Patient Mobilization and Rehabilitation in the Intensive Care Unit. Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1513/annalsats.201611-843sr
The paper
Nydahl, P., Sricharoenchai, T., Chandra, S., Kundt, F. S., Huang, M., Fischill, M., & Needham, D. M. (2017). Safety of Patient Mobilization and Rehabilitation in the Intensive Care Unit. Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Annals of the American Thoracic Society. https://doi.org/10.1513/annalsats.201611-843sr

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.