Question · asked by 1 review
ICU follow‐up services vs standard care or no follow‐up service: Adverse effects
- Population
- adult survivors of the ICU, excluding those already in an existing follow‐up or rehabilitation programme
- Intervention
- ICU follow‐up services
- Comparison
- standard care or no follow‐up service
- Outcome
- Adverse effects
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
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 Adverse effects · adult survivors of the ICU, excluding those already in an existing follow‐up or rehabilitation programme The review found no eligible studies for this question. Follow‐up services for improving long‐term outcomes in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors (2018) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | Not reported | No studies found |
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 | Not extracted | Not assessed |
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.