Physical rehabilitation interventions in the intensive care unit: a scoping review of 117 studies

Julie C Reid; Janelle Unger; Devin McCaskell; Laura Childerhose; David J Zorko; Michelle E Kho

doi:10.1186/s40560-018-0349-x

Physical rehabilitation interventions in the intensive care unit: a scoping review of 117 studies

J Intensive Care. 2018 Dec 7:6:80. doi: 10.1186/s40560-018-0349-x. eCollection 2018.

Authors

Julie C Reid¹, Janelle Unger², Devin McCaskell³, Laura Childerhose¹, David J Zorko⁴, Michelle E Kho^{1

3}

Affiliations

¹ 1Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, Room 403, 1400 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 1C7 Canada.
² 2Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Rehabilitation Sciences Building, 500 University Avenue, Suite 160, Toronto, ON M5G 1V7 Canada.
³ 3Department of Physiotherapy, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, ON L8N 4A6 Canada.
⁴ 4Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1 Canada.

Abstract

Background: Physical rehabilitation (PR) interventions in the intensive care unit (ICU) can improve patients' functional outcomes, yet systematic reviews identified discordant effects and poor reporting. We conducted a scoping review to determine the extent of ICU PR interventions and how they were reported and measured.

Methods: We searched five databases from inception to December 2016 for prospective studies evaluating adult ICU PR interventions. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for inclusion. We assessed completeness of reporting using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, or Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence guidelines, as appropriate. For planned PR interventions, we evaluated reporting with the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) and assessed intervention and control groups separately. We calculated completeness of reporting scores for each study; scores represented the proportion of reported items. We compared reporting between groups using Kruskal-Wallis with Bonferroni corrections and t tests, α = 0.05.

Results: We screened 61,774 unique citations, reviewed 1429 full-text publications, and included 117: 39 randomized trials, 30 case series, 9 two-group comparison, 14 before-after, and 25 cohort. Interventions included neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) (14.5%), passive/active exercises (15.4%), cycling (6.8%), progressive mobility (32.5%), and multicomponent (29.9%). The median (first,third quartiles) study reporting score was 75.9% (62.5, 86.7) with no significant differences between reporting guidelines. Of 87 planned intervention studies, the median CERT score was 55.6%(44.7,75.0); cycling had the highest (85.0%(62.2,93.8)), and NMES and multicomponent the lowest (50.0% (39.5, 70.3) and 50.0% (41.5, 58.8), respectively) scores. Authors reported intervention groups better than controls (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: We identified important reporting deficiencies in ICU PR interventions, limiting clinical implementation and future trial development.

Keywords: Critical care; Critical illness; Early ambulation; Rehabilitation; Respiration, artificial.