Patient-reported physical functioning is limited in almost half of critical illness survivors 1-year after ICU-admission: A retrospective single-centre study
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 15, Issue: 12 December, Page: e0243981
2020
- 9Citations
- 42Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations9
- Citation Indexes9
- Captures42
- Readers42
- 42
Article Description
Post-intensive care unit (ICU) sequelae, including physical and mental health problems, are relatively unexplored. Characteristics commonly used to predict outcome lack prognostic value when it comes to long-term physical recovery. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the incidence of non-recovery in long-stay ICU-patients. In this single-centre study, retrospective data of adults with an ICU stay >48 hours who visited the specialized post-ICU clinic, and completed the Dutch RAND 36-item Short Form questionnaire at 3 and 12 months post-ICU, were retrieved from electronic patient records. In cases where physical functioning scores at 12 months were below reference values, patients were allocated to the physical non-recovery (NR) group. Significantly different baseline and (post-)ICU-characteristics were assessed for correlations with physical recovery at 12 months post-ICU. Of 250 patients, 110 (44%) fulfilled the criteria for the NR-group. Neither the severity of illness, type of admission, nor presence of sepsis did not differ between groups. However, NR-patients had a higher age, were more often female, and had a higher incidence of co-morbidities. Shorter LOS ICU, lower incidence of medical comorbidities, and better physical performance at 3 months were significantly correlated with 1-year physical recovery. Comorbidities and reduced physical functioning at 3 months were identified as independent riskfactors for long-term physical non-recovery. In conclusion, a substantial proportion of longstay ICU-patients who visited the standard care post-ICU clinic did not fulfil the criteria for full physical recovery at 12 months post-ICU. Commonly used ICU-characteristics, such as severity of illness, do not have sufficient prognostic value when it comes to long-term recovery of health-related quality of life.
Bibliographic Details
10.1371/journal.pone.0243981; 10.1371/journal.pone.0243981.g003; 10.1371/journal.pone.0243981.t002; 10.1371/journal.pone.0243981.g001; 10.1371/journal.pone.0243981.g002; 10.1371/journal.pone.0243981.t001
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85098322435&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243981; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33315942; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243981.g003; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243981.g003; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243981; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243981.t002; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243981.t002; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243981.g001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243981.g001; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243981.g002; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243981.g002; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243981.t001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243981.t001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243981.g001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243981.g001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243981.t002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243981.t002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243981; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243981; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243981.g003; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243981.g003; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243981.g002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243981.g002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243981.t001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243981.t001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243981&type=printable
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know