Question · asked by 1 review
ICU follow‐up services vs standard care or no follow‐up service: Cognitive function
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
ICU follow‐up services vs standard care or no follow‐up service Cognitive function Scoring tools: MCS of SF‐36 and SF‐8 Direction of scales: higher scores indicate improved cognitive function Time point of measurement: at 12 months in 2 randomised studies and at 6 months in 1 randomised study (using SF‐36), an... · adult survivors of the ICU, excluding those already in an existing follow‐up or rehabilitation programme Follow‐up services for improving long‐term outcomes in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 622 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Follow‐up services for improving long‐term outcomes in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.