Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 51-11 | Page 67

Cochrane Corner • should include assessments by healthcare profes- sionals experienced in critical care and rehabilitation. For patients at risk, agree short-term and medium- term rehabilitation goals, based on the comprehen- sive clinical assessment. The patient’s family and/or carer should also be involved. However, evidence to support these guidelines is currently still very limited. They did propose a list of research questions such as: • Which therapeutic strategies are the most clini- cally and cost effective at reducing the prevalence and severity of critical illness-associated physical morbidity, psychological morbidity and cognitive dysfunction or at reducing the magnitude of critical illness-associated physical morbidity, psychological morbidity and cognitive dysfunction? In the last decade, several Cochrane Reviews have been published regarding the prevention and treatment of critical illness neuro- and/or myopathy and PICS at large of which we give a short overview. In 2014, a Cochrane Review on interventions for preventing critical illness polyneuropathy (CIP) and cri- tical illness myopathy (CIM) showed moderate-quality evidence suggesting a potential benefit – shorter duration of mechanical ventilation – of early rehabilitation on CIP/ CIM. Very low-quality evidence suggested no effect of electrical muscle stimulation (7). Two Cochrane Reviews were published in 2015 on rehabilitation for patients with critical illness. The first one focused on physical rehabilitation interventions for in- and outpatients with CIP/CIM, in the acute as well as the chronic phase. Unfortunately, the authors had to con- clude that there were no published RCTs or quasi-RCTs that examine whether physical rehabilitation interventions improve activities of daily living for people with CIP/CIM (8). The second one assessed the effectiveness of exercise rehabilitation programmes, initiated after ICU discharge, for functional exercise capacity and HRQoL in adult ICU survivors (9). An overall result for the effects of exercise- based interventions could not be determined. Three studies reported improvement in functional exercise but 3 others found no effects of treatment. A third review published in 2018 studied the effects of early intervention (mobiliza- tion or active exercise), commenced in the ICU, provided to critically ill adults, on improving physical function or performance, muscle strength and HRQoL. Currently there was only low-quality evidence for the effect, more specifically (in one study) getting out of bed earlier and walking a greater distance, but no effect on number of daily activities they could perform (10). Another very recently published systematic review found that enhanced physical rehabilitation following ICU discharge may make little or no difference to quality of life or mortality (11). Two other non-Cochrane reviews concluded on positive effects 881 of early rehabilitation on muscle strength and functional status, even if they also advise further research to improve quality of evidence (12, 13). Concerning psychological symptoms such as anxiety and depression a Cochrane Review from 2014 found minimal evidence from RCTs of the benefits or harms of patient diaries for patients and their caregivers or family members. A small study has described their potential to reduce post-traumatic stress symptomatology in family members. However, there is currently inadequate evi- dence to support their effectiveness in improving psy- chological recovery after critical illness for patients and their family members (14). The authors of a more recent Cochrane Review, from 2018, were uncertain of the ef- fects of information or education interventions given to adult ICU patients and their carers, as the evidence in all cases was of very low-certainty (15). So in summary, even though guidelines recommend early rehabilitation during as well as after a stay in the ICU for critically ill adults, robust evidence on the ef- fectiveness is still lacking. This may change in future updates as several studies are ongoing. As Brown et al. (16) state, the complexity of the health states associated with PICS suggests tha t careful and rigorous evaluation of multidisciplinary, multimodality interventions – tied to the specific conditions of interest – will be required to address these important problems. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. The author thanks Cochrane Rehabilitation and Cochrane Ef- fective Practice and Organisation of Care Group for reviewing the contents of the Cochrane Corner. The author have no conflicts of interest declare. REFERENCES 1. Schofield-Robinson OJ, Lewis SR, Smith AF, McPeake J, Alderson P. Follow-up services for improving long-term outcomes in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 11: CD012701. 2. Needham DM, Davidson J, Cohen H, Hopkins RO, Weinert C, Wunsch H, et al. Improving long-term outcomes after discharge from intensive care unit: report from a stake- holders’ conference. Crit Care Med 2012; 40: 502–509. 3. Needham DM, Kamdar BB, Stevenson JE. Rehabilitation of mind and body after intensive care unit discharge: a step closer to recovery. Crit Care Med 2012; 40: 1340–1341. 4. Kress JP, Hall JB. ICU-acquired weakness and recovery from critical illness. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1626–1635. 5. Ohtake PJ, Lee AC, Scott JC, Hinman RS, Ali NA, Hinkson CR, et al. Physical Impairments Associated With Post- Intensive Care Syndrome: Systematic Review Based on the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Framework. Phys Ther 2018; 98: 631–645. 6. Centre for Clinical Practice at NICE (UK). Rehabilitation After Critical Illness [Internet]. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (UK); 2009 [cited 2019 Oct 30]. (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excel- J Rehabil Med 51, 2019