Cochrane · systematic review · CD012701
Follow‐up services for improving long‐term outcomes in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors
Schofield‐Robinson, OJ, Lewis, SR, Smith, AF, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
Effective Practice and Organisation of CareAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
8
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 12.5%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 4 · 50%Low 2 · 25%Moderate 1 · 12.5%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
ICU follow‐up services compared with standard care or no follow‐up service for survivors of critical illness
Population: adult survivors of the ICU, excluding those already in an existing follow‐up or rehabilitation programme
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Health‐related quality of life Scoring tool: EQ‐5D Direction of scale: lower scores indicate better HRQoL Time point of measurement: 12 months ICU follow‐up services vs standard care or no follow‐up service | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 286 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
All‐cause mortality Time point of measurement: 2 months in 1 randomised study; 12 months in 3 randomised studies; 14 months in 1 non‐randomised study ICU follow‐up services vs standard care or no follow‐up service | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 1289 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency |
Depression and anxiety Scoring tool: HADS‐D and HADS‐A Direction of scale: lower scores indicate less depression and less anxiety Time point of measurement: 12 months in 2 randomised studies; 14 months in 1 non‐randomised study ICU follow‐up services vs standard care or no follow‐up service | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 1082 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) Scoring tools: DVT, HTQ‐IV, IES, and PTSS‐10 Direction of scales: lower scores indicate less distressing symptoms of PTSD Time point of measurement: 12 months in 2 randomised studies; 14 months in 1 non‐random... ICU follow‐up services vs standard care or no follow‐up service | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 703 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Physical function Scoring tool: PCS Direction of scales: higher scores indicate improved physical function Time point of measurement: at 12 months in 3 randomised studies (using SF‐36), and at 2 months in 1 randomised study (using SF‐8) ICU follow‐up services vs standard care or no follow‐up service | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 422 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
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... ICU follow‐up services vs standard care or no follow‐up service | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 622 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Ability to return to work or education (reported at 12 months) ICU follow‐up services vs standard care or no follow‐up service | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 386 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse effects ICU follow‐up services vs standard care or no follow‐up service | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |