Early Mobilization Dose Reporting in Randomized Clinical Trials With Patients Who Were Mechanically Ventilated: A Scoping Review
Journal
Physical Therapy
ISSN
0031-9023
1538-6724
Date Issued
2024
Author(s)
Felipe González-Seguel
Renato Letelier-Bernal
Type
journal-article
Abstract
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Objective</jats:title>
<jats:p>The aim of this scoping review was to investigate the mobilization dose reporting in the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Methods</jats:title>
<jats:p>In this scoping review, RCTs published from inception to December 2022 were searched in relevant electronic databases. Trials that involved adults receiving mechanical ventilation (>48 hours) and any early mobilization modality were analyzed. Two independent authors screened, selected, and extracted data. The mobilization doses of the intervention groups (IGs) and the comparator groups (CGs) were assessed as the proportion of reported items/total applicable from the main items of the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT).</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Results</jats:title>
<jats:p>Twenty-three RCTs comprising 2707 patients (1358 from IG and 1349 from CG) were included, involving studies on neuromuscular electrical stimulation (n = 7), progressive mobility (n = 6), leg cycling (n = 3), tilt table (n = 1), and multicomponent (n = 6) mobilization. The pooled reporting of CERT items was 68% (86% for IG and 50% for CG). The most reported CERT items were type of exercise (100%) and weekly frequency (100%) for IG, whereas the least reported were intensity (4%) and individualization (22%) for CG. Regardless of the group, individualization, progression, and intensity of mobilization were the least reported items. Eight IGs (35%) reported all CERT items, whereas no CGs reported all of them.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title>
<jats:p>Deficits in mobilization dose reporting of intensive care unit RCTs were identified, especially for exercise intensity in adults receiving mechanical ventilation. One-third of IG reported all exercise dosing items, whereas no CG reported all of them. Future studies should investigate the details of optimal dosage reporting, particularly for CG.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Impact</jats:title>
<jats:p>The lack of dose reporting may partially explain the inconsistency in the meta-analysis results of early mobilization trials, thus limiting the interpretation for clinical practice in the intensive care unit.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Objective</jats:title>
<jats:p>The aim of this scoping review was to investigate the mobilization dose reporting in the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Methods</jats:title>
<jats:p>In this scoping review, RCTs published from inception to December 2022 were searched in relevant electronic databases. Trials that involved adults receiving mechanical ventilation (>48 hours) and any early mobilization modality were analyzed. Two independent authors screened, selected, and extracted data. The mobilization doses of the intervention groups (IGs) and the comparator groups (CGs) were assessed as the proportion of reported items/total applicable from the main items of the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT).</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Results</jats:title>
<jats:p>Twenty-three RCTs comprising 2707 patients (1358 from IG and 1349 from CG) were included, involving studies on neuromuscular electrical stimulation (n = 7), progressive mobility (n = 6), leg cycling (n = 3), tilt table (n = 1), and multicomponent (n = 6) mobilization. The pooled reporting of CERT items was 68% (86% for IG and 50% for CG). The most reported CERT items were type of exercise (100%) and weekly frequency (100%) for IG, whereas the least reported were intensity (4%) and individualization (22%) for CG. Regardless of the group, individualization, progression, and intensity of mobilization were the least reported items. Eight IGs (35%) reported all CERT items, whereas no CGs reported all of them.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title>
<jats:p>Deficits in mobilization dose reporting of intensive care unit RCTs were identified, especially for exercise intensity in adults receiving mechanical ventilation. One-third of IG reported all exercise dosing items, whereas no CG reported all of them. Future studies should investigate the details of optimal dosage reporting, particularly for CG.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Impact</jats:title>
<jats:p>The lack of dose reporting may partially explain the inconsistency in the meta-analysis results of early mobilization trials, thus limiting the interpretation for clinical practice in the intensive care unit.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
Cite this document
González-Seguel, F., & Letelier-Bernal, R. (2024). Early mobilization dose reporting in randomized clinical trials with patients who were mechanically ventilated: A scoping review. Physical Therapy, 104(6), pzae048. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzae048
Subjects
clinical trials
;
early mobilization
;
exercise
;
intensive care unit
;
rehabilitation