Skip to main content
Download PDF

Instruments to assess post-intensive care syndrome assessment: a scoping review and modified Delphi method study

Critical Care volume 27, Article number: 430 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The assessment of post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) is challenging due to the numerous types of instruments. We herein attempted to identify and propose recommendations for instruments to assess PICS in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review to identify PICS follow-up studies at and after hospital discharge between 2014 and 2022. Assessment instruments used more than two times were included in the modified Delphi consensus process. A modified Delphi meeting was conducted three times by the PICS committee of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine, and each score was rated as not important (score: 1–3), important, but not critical (4–6), and critical (7–9). We included instruments with ≥ 70% of respondents rating critical and ≤ 15% of respondents rating not important.

Results

In total, 6972 records were identified in this scoping review, and 754 studies were included in the analysis. After data extraction, 107 PICS assessment instruments were identified. The modified Delphi meeting reached 20 PICS assessment instrument recommendations: (1) in the physical domain: the 6-min walk test, MRC score, and grip strength, (2) in cognition: MoCA, MMSE, and SMQ, (3) in mental health: HADS, IES-R, and PHQ-9, (4) in the activities of daily living: the Barthel Index, IADL, and FIM, (5) in quality of life: SF-36, SF-12, EQ-5D-5L, 3L, and VAS (6), in sleep and pain: PSQI and Brief Pain Inventory, respectively, and (7) in the PICS-family domain: SF-36, HADS, and IES-R.

Conclusion

Based on a scoping review and the modified Delphi method, 20 PICS assessment instruments are recommended to assess physical, cognitive, mental health, activities of daily living, quality of life, sleep, and pain in ICU survivors and their families.

Background

Critically ill patients have prolonged physical, cognitive, and mental issues, termed post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) [1]. In a previous study, approximately 60% of patients exhibited a PICS symptom 6 months after hospital discharge [2]. Similarly, PICS was observed in approximately 60% of patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) 6 months after hospital discharge [3]. PICS symptoms are obstacles to daily life and returning to work, and, thus, decrease quality of life (QOL) [4]. It is important to assess PICS after intensive care and follow-up the screened population [5].

The concept of PICS was proposed in 2013 by Needham et al. [6]. Following this proposal, research on PICS increased. Turnbull et al. conducted a scoping review on instruments to assess outcomes between 1970 and 2013 [7] and showed that numerous PICS assessment tools were used without properly standardized recommendations. Needham et al. performed an international modified Delphi consensus study to identify PICS assessment instruments for acute respiratory failure survivors [8]. This international modified Delphi consensus study did not reach a consensus for various instruments, and the Society of Critical Care Medicine proposed the recommendation of PICS assessment instruments [5]. Other groups also proposed recommendations for PICS assessment instruments [9,10,11,12].

Despite these recommendations, recent studies used different PICS assessment instruments [2, 13]. Some studies employed the Short-Memory Questionnaire (SMQ) to assess cognitive impairments [2, 3], which was not included in previous recommendations. A meta-analysis revealed variations in PICS assessment instruments among studies [13]. Therefore, it is still unclear how frequently the recommended PICS assessment instruments are used in research and clinical practice. Ten years have passed since the scoping review by Turnbull et al. [7], and, thus, an update to investigate how PICS assessment instruments have been used is required.

We conducted a two-step process involving a scoping review and modified Delphi method to investigate the recommendations of PICS assessment instruments. We initially performed a scoping review to identify, which PICS assessment instruments are frequently used. We then held a modified Delphi meeting on the screened instruments to create recommendations in clinical practice. Since clinical usefulness is based not only on the frequency of use, but various aspects are also important for identifying the appropriate recommendation to assess PICS, including scientific evidence, convenience, such as online or telephone assessments, time for the assessment, and cost. Therefore, in this Delphi process, we did not focus on a specific condition, but rather on various diseases, environments, and evaluators for applications under any condition.

Methods

Study design

The present study aimed to reach to a consensus on PICS assessment instruments. The study design was based on a scoping review and modified Delphi method (Fig. 1). The scoping review was conducted to identify eligible assessment methods that have frequently been reported in research. The Delphi method has been used to evaluate methods recommended by members with extensive experience on PICS. Since the scoping review and Delphi method were used, we did not obtain approval from an ethics committee. The present study was registered as a clinical trial (UMIN Clinical Trials Registry: 000049634).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Illustration of the scoping review and modified Delphi consensus process. CENTRAL: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, CINAHL: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ADL: activities of daily living, QOL: quality of life, JSICM: the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine, PICS: post-intensive care syndrome

Full size image

Scoping review

In this scoping review based on Arksey and O’Malley’s 5-stage framework and PRISMA [14, 15], we searched for common evaluation instruments on the physical, cognitive, mental health, QOL, ADL, other, and family domains of ICU survivors. Since a previous scoping review searched until 2013 [7], we investigated the following databases between 2014 and 2022: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) via PubMed, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). The key search terms are listed in the Additional file 1. We did not ask the authors of original studies for unpublished or additional data.

Data extraction and study selection in the scoping review

After record identification, data were exported into Endnote, and duplicates were deleted. After data were imported into Rayan from Endnote, 1st and 2nd screenings were conducted by four reviewers with reliable interrater reproducibility (κ value of 0.78 [95% CI: 0.68 to 0.87]), based on a previous study [16]. The 1st screening was conducted from the titles and abstracts of each set of retrieved data. We included studies on adult ICU survivors (≥ 18 years of age) and their family members at hospital discharge or thereafter. The study design included retrospective, observational, and randomized controlled trials regardless of any intervention. We excluded reviews, protocols, trial registries, case reports, conference abstracts, and studies in languages other than English. In the case of a disagreement between reviewers, a third reviewer adjudicated when needed. The 2nd screening was conducted on full texts. We included studies that assessed any PICS outcome at hospital discharge or thereafter. Exclusion criteria were classified into different languages, designs, populations, and outcomes. Data from eligible articles were extracted into the data collection format by reviewers. Data were separately input into categories at or after hospital discharge. Extraction was based on methods to assess the following outcomes: (1) physical function, (2) cognitive function, (3) mental health, (4) ADL, (5) QOL, (6) other, and (7) family domains.

The Delphi consensus process

A three-round, modified Delphi consensus process was conducted to identify desirable instruments to assess PICS. Based on the scoping review, we selected outcome evaluation instruments used more than two times. Voting was conducted three times online by the 23 members of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine PICS committee and working group members, consisting of 14 physicians, 6 physiotherapists, and 3 nurses. The evaluation of these instruments was based on the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist [17]. The information provided was summarized and attached in the Additional file 1. Voters rated outcome assessment instruments using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) scale as follows: not important (score: 1–3), important, but not critical (4–6), and critical (7–9) [18]. The evaluation was based on the clinical usefulness of the PICS evaluation, including scientific evidence and the published frequency assessed through the scoping review. Scoring included the usefulness of both screening and follow-ups. In the objective evaluation, we examined the assessment consensus as follows: When (evaluation timing): at and after hospital discharge, Where: hospital, outpatients’ clinic, and telephone interviews, Who (person to use the scores): not specific and includes voters or other staff, Whom (patients to be assessed): the general population and not limited to a specific disease, How: convenience, time for the assessment, and cost. Convenience for use in Japan, such as a verified Japanese version, was not taken into consideration. A consensus was defined as ≥ 70% of respondents rating critical and ≤ 15% of respondents rating not important in the 3rd round of the modified Delphi meeting. Scoring results and comments were provided to the voters in rounds 2 and 3, and voters reevaluated outcome assessment instruments.

Results

Literature Search

The PRISMA Flow Diagram in Fig. 2 shows the article selection process in the scoping review. The search strategy identified 6972 records, of which 754 were included in the analysis. Among 754 included studies, 114 (15%) were related to COVID-19. The timing of the PICS evaluation varied among studies, and multiple follow-ups were counted separately. Among 995 follow-ups, evaluations were frequently conducted after 3 months in 253 (25%), after 12 months in 212 (21%), and after 6 months in 204 (21%). Follow-ups were counted from hospital discharge in 239 (42%), ICU discharge in 211 (37%), and ICU admission in 120 (21%).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Flowchart for selecting articles in the systematic review. CENTRAL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online; CINAHL, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature

Full size image

Data extraction

All 754 records were shown in the Additional file 1: Table S1. Among 754 records, we extracted PICS assessment instruments, which are shown in Additional file 1: Tables S2 and S3. We included the following number of PICS assessment instruments from those used more than 2 times: (1) 23 items in physical function, (2) 14 in cognitive function, (3) 24 in mental health, (4) 13 in ADL, (5) 9 in QOL, (6) other: 3 in sleep, 4 in pain, 2 in fatigue, and 2 other items, and (7) 13 in family (Table 1).

Table 1 Extracted PICS assessment after hospital discharge
Full size table

The Delphi consensus

The results of 3 rounds of the modified Delphi consensus are shown in Table 1. We ultimately included 20 PICS assessment instruments (Table 2, [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54]): (1) 3 items in physical function: the 6-min walk test, Medical Research Council (MRC) score, and grip strength, (2) 3 items in cognitive function: the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and Short Memory Questionnaire (SMQ), (3) 3 items in mental health: the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), (4) 3 items in ADL: the Barthel Index, Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL), and Functional Independence Measure (FIM), (5) 5 items in QOL: Short Form-36 (SF-36), EQ-5D-5L (EuroQol-5Dimension-5Level), EQ-5D-3L (EuroQol-5Dimension-3Level), EQ-VAS (EuroQol-Visual Analog Scale), and SF-12, (6) 1 item in sleep: the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), 1 item in pain: Brief Pain Inventory, and (7) 3 items in family: SF-36, HADS, and IES-R.

Table 2 Summary of assessment instruments for post-intensive care syndrome
Full size table

Discussion

We herein conducted a scoping review and used the modified Delphi method to reach a consensus on recommendations of PICS assessment instruments. In the scoping review, 107 PICS assessment instruments were identified from the order of instrument use frequency between 2014 and 2022. After the modified Delphi meeting, we reached a consensus on 20 PICS assessment instruments for the physical, cognitive, mental, ADL, QOL, sleep, pain, and family domains. Three assessment instruments were included in each physical, cognitive, mental, ADL, QOL, and PICS-F assessment.

The assessment of physical function included the 6-min walk test, MRC score, and grip strength. The 6-min walk test was included as a PICS assessment instrument because of its confirmed validity [55, 56]; it is included in the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s consensus [5]. The advantage of using the MRC score is its convenience without the need for instruments. It is a valid and reliable tool for assessing prolonged physical impairments under careful training [57]. Grip strength allows for a quick evaluation of muscle strength and only requires a grip dynamometer. It is important to note that grip strength reflects not only grip strength, but also the whole-body strength and QOL of patients [58, 59].

Cognitive function assessments included MoCA, MMSE, and SMQ. MoCA is the most widely used for cognitive assessments, with several international consensuses [5, 60]. MMSE is often used in PICS assessments [61, 62], but may require the proper selection of a follow-up population [63]. Although SMQ was not included in previous international consensuses [5, 60], there are several positive features for its use. SMQ is a valid and reliable tool that correlates with MMSE [64]. It may also be assessed through a telephone interview or questionnaire [2], which is important for the continued follow-up of critically ill patients [65].

Mental health assessments included HADS, IES-R, and PHQ-9. HADS had the highest score in the modified Delphi meeting for anxiety and depression assessments, which is consistent with previous international consensuses [5, 60]. IES-R is used to assess PTSD [66], and is valid for evaluations of acute lung injury survivors [67]. IES-R is also recommended in the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s consensus with a clear cutoff value threshold [5]. PHQ-9 is the tool recommended by the American Heart Association to evaluate depression [36, 68] and has also been used in prolonged depression symptom assessments after COVID-19 [69]. IES-6 was not included as a recommendation in this study, but it was in the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s consensus. The infrequent use of IES-6 may have contributed to this difference.

The assessment of ADL included the Barthel Index, IADL, and FIM. In this study, the Barthel index was the most widely used scale for the ADL assessment [70]. IADL evaluates more complex skills in daily life. In a previous study, only 13% of survivors of critical illness were able to drive after hospital discharge [71]. These high-level skills are important for reintegration into society, as assessed by IADL. FIM includes communication and social cognitive functions [72]. The assessment of FIM is useful for monitoring changes in the status of a patient [73].

The assessment of QOL included SF-36, EQ-5D-5L, 3L, VAS, and SF-12. Although SF-36 involves questions on many items and requires a usage fee, it is the most widely used tool to assess the QOL of patients, reflecting the reliability and validity of this score [74]. SF-12 was included as a recommendation in this study. SF-12 is brief, but not inferior to SF-36 [75, 76]. Since numerous questionnaires may be stressful for patients [77], the brief version will be useful for future clinical use. EQ-5D was included as a recommendation, similar to a previous consensus [5]. The assessment of EQ-5D had a high score in the Delphi meeting in the following order: 5 levels, visual analog scale, 3 levels.

Other domains included sleep and pain. Many ICU survivors develop sleep disturbance and approximately 40% have chronic pain after hospital discharge [78, 79]. Therefore, these assessments are important. The assessment of sleep disturbance using PSQI [80] and pain with the Brief Pain Inventory [81] were previously recommended. It is important to note that the assessment of pain is also included in other QOL scores. These domains have been attracting increasing attention as symptoms included in PICS [82]. The management of sleep and pain symptoms warrants further study [83].

Family members of ICU survivors may also develop prolonged mental illness [84]. Family members experience anxiety, depression, and PTSD, which decrease QOL [85]. In the assessment of PICS-F, we recommend the use of HADS for anxiety and depression, IES-R for PTSD, and SF-36 for QOL. Few consensuses have been reported regarding PICS-F assessment tools [86]. Assessment tools varied among previous studies [87]. Therefore, this recommendation will contribute to the mental health issues and QOL of family members as well as ICU survivors.

Among 20 PICS assessment instruments, the following instruments had the highest scores in the final round of the modified Delphi consensus process in each domain of PICS-F: the MRC score in physical function, MoCA in cognitive function, HADS in mental health, the Barthel index in ADL, EQ-5D-5L in QOL, PSQI in sleep, Brief Pain Inventory in pain, and HADS in mental health. Because we finally identified 3 PICS assessment instruments in each domain, the single recommendation based on the highest scores may be more helpful for the PICS assessment in the future research. However, it is important to be aware that each instrument has different advantages and disadvantages and difficult to recommend a single assessment tool for each PICS domain.

Our final goal of providing PICS assessment instruments is the complete reintegration of ICU survivors into society. PICS may result in financial hardship, social isolation, suicide, and unemployment. As the first step for prevention, early identification is mandatory using these PICS assessment instruments. Furthermore, we need to provide continuous assessments and necessary interventions, including rehabilitation, nutrition management, and cognitive and psychological interventions. Although further studies are needed to validate these instruments for the assessment of PICS, these recommendations will contribute to preventing and managing PICS in ICU survivors and family members for their future reintegration into society.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. The scoping review and Delphi consensus were conducted in Japan. Although generalizability may be limited, we did not consider convenience for use of the Delphi consensus in Japan in order to maintain its validation in other countries. Furthermore, some recommendations were consistent with previous consensuses [5, 8]. Another limitation is that Delphi meeting members did not include patients, their family, or various health care providers; however, we included physiotherapists and nurses as well as physicians. Moreover, since we did not include sleep or pain in the scoping review formula, their frequency of use may have been underestimated. We also conducted the modified Delphi method on scores used more than two times. Therefore, new scores used less than three times may not have been included in the present study. Recent scores, such as PCL-5, were not included in this consensus study partly due to their infrequent use in the scoping review. In addition the classification of instruments was difficult. We classified EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L, and EQ-5D-VAS as different scores, but did not divide the brief pain inventory into a short- or full-length version. This type of classification may have affected the results of the scoping review.

Conclusions

We conducted a scoping review and the modified Delphi method to clarify the recommendations of instruments to assess PICS. Based on the results obtained, we recommended 20 PICS assessment instruments in the physical, cognitive, mental, ADL, QOL, sleep, pain, and family (PICS-F) domains. Further studies are needed to validate these instruments for PICS assessments.

Availability of data and materials

Data are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

References

  1. Nakanishi N, Liu K, Kawakami D, Kawai Y, Morisawa T, Nishida T, Sumita H, Unoki T, Hifumi T, Iida Y, et al. Post-Intensive Care Syndrome and its new challenges in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: a review of recent advances and perspectives. J Clin Med. 2021;10(17):3870.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Kawakami D, Fujitani S, Morimoto T, Dote H, Takita M, Takaba A, Hino M, Nakamura M, Irie H, Adachi T, et al. Prevalence of post-intensive care syndrome among Japanese intensive care unit patients: a prospective, multicenter, observational J-PICS study. Crit Care. 2021;25(1):69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Hatakeyama J, Inoue S, Liu K, Yamakawa K, Nishida T, Ohshimo S, Hashimoto S, Kanda N, Maruyama S, Ogata Y, et al. Prevalence and risk factor analysis of Post-Intensive Care Syndrome in patients with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation: a multicenter prospective observational study. J Clin Med. 2022;11(19):5758.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Kamdar BB, Suri R, Suchyta MR, Digrande KF, Sherwood KD, Colantuoni E, Dinglas VD, Needham DM, Hopkins RO. Return to work after critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorax. 2020;75(1):17–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mikkelsen ME, Still M, Anderson BJ, Bienvenu OJ, Brodsky MB, Brummel N, Butcher B, Clay AS, Felt H, Ferrante LE, et al. Society of Critical Care Medicine’s international consensus conference on prediction and identification of long-term impairments after critical illness. Crit Care Med. 2020;48(11):1670–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Needham DM, Davidson J, Cohen H, Hopkins RO, Weinert C, Wunsch H, Zawistowski C, Bemis-Dougherty A, Berney SC, Bienvenu OJ, et al. Improving long-term outcomes after discharge from intensive care unit: report from a stakeholders’ conference. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(2):502–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Turnbull AE, Rabiee A, Davis WE, Nasser MF, Venna VR, Lolitha R, Hopkins RO, Bienvenu OJ, Robinson KA, Needham DM. Outcome measurement in ICU survivorship research from 1970 to 2013: a scoping review of 425 publications. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(7):1267–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Needham DM, Sepulveda KA, Dinglas VD, Chessare CM, Friedman LA, Bingham CO III, Turnbull AE. Core outcome measures for clinical research in acute respiratory failure survivors. An international modified Delphi consensus study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;196(9):1122–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Spies CD, Krampe H, Paul N, Denke C, Kiselev J, Piper SK, Kruppa J, Grunow JJ, Steinecke K, Gülmez T, et al. Instruments to measure outcomes of post-intensive care syndrome in outpatient care settings—results of an expert consensus and feasibility field test. J Intensive Care Soc. 2021;22(2):159–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hodgson CL, Burrell AJC, Engeler DM, Pellegrino VA, Brodie D, Fan E. Core outcome measures for research in critically Ill patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory or cardiac failure: an international, multidisciplinary, modified delphi consensus study. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(11):1557–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Haywood K, Whitehead L, Nadkarni VM, Achana F, Beesems S, Böttiger BW, Brooks A, Castrén M, Ong ME, Hazinski MF, et al. COSCA (Core Outcome Set for Cardiac Arrest) in adults: an advisory statement from the international liaison committee on resuscitation. Circulation. 2018;137(22):e783–801.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Davies TW, van Gassel RJJ, van de Poll M, Gunst J, Casaer MP, Christopher KB, Preiser JC, Hill A, Gundogan K, Reintam-Blaser A, et al. Core outcome measures for clinical effectiveness trials of nutritional and metabolic interventions in critical illness: an international modified Delphi consensus study evaluation (CONCISE). Crit Care. 2022;26(1):240.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee M, Kang J, Jeong YJ. Risk factors for post-intensive care syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aust Crit Care. 2020;33(3):287–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Moher D, Peters MDJ, Horsley T, Weeks L, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dunne CL, Elzinga JL, Vorobeichik A, Sudershan S, Keto-Lambert D, Lang E, Dowling S. A systematic review of interventions to reduce computed tomography usage in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2022;80(6):548–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Robinson KA, Davis WE, Dinglas VD, Mendez-Tellez PA, Rabiee A, Sukrithan V, Yalamanchilli R, Turnbull AE, Needham DM. A systematic review finds limited data on measurement properties of instruments measuring outcomes in adult intensive care unit survivors. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;82:37–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Singh SJ, Puhan MA, Andrianopoulos V, Hernandes NA, Mitchell KE, Hill CJ, Lee AL, Camillo CA, Troosters T, Spruit MA, et al. An official systematic review of the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society: measurement properties of field walking tests in chronic respiratory disease. Eur Respir J. 2014;44(6):1447–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Alison JA, Kenny P, King MT, McKinley S, Aitken LM, Leslie GD, Elliott D. Repeatability of the six-minute walk test and relation to physical function in survivors of a critical illness. Phys Ther. 2012;92(12):1556–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Puhan MA, Mador MJ, Held U, Goldstein R, Guyatt GH, Schünemann HJ. Interpretation of treatment changes in 6-minute walk distance in patients with COPD. Eur Respir J. 2008;32(3):637–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vanpee G, Hermans G, Segers J, Gosselink R. Assessment of limb muscle strength in critically ill patients: a systematic review. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(3):701–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ali NA, O’Brien JM Jr, Hoffmann SP, Phillips G, Garland A, Finley JC, Almoosa K, Hejal R, Wolf KM, Lemeshow S, et al. Acquired weakness, handgrip strength, and mortality in critically ill patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2008;178(3):261–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Baldwin CE, Paratz JD, Bersten AD. Muscle strength assessment in critically ill patients with handheld dynamometry: an investigation of reliability, minimal detectable change, and time to peak force generation. J Crit Care. 2013;28(1):77–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nordon-Craft A, Schenkman M, Edbrooke L, Malone DJ, Moss M, Denehy L. The physical function intensive care test: implementation in survivors of critical illness. Phys Ther. 2014;94(10):1499–507.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, Cummings JL, Chertkow H. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wong GKC, Mak JSY, Wong A, Zheng VZY, Poon WS, Abrigo J, Mok VCT. Minimum clinically important difference of Montreal Cognitive Assessment in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage patients. J Clin Neurosci. 2017;46:41–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lee Y-C, Lee S-C, Chiu E-C. Practice effect and test-retest reliability of the Mini-Mental State Examination-2 in people with dementia. BMC Geriatr. 2022;22(1):67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Pinto TCC, Machado L, Bulgacov TM, Rodrigues-Júnior AL, Costa MLG, Ximenes RCC, Sougey EB. Is the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) screening superior to the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in the detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) in the elderly? Int Psychogeriatr. 2019;31(4):491–504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Andrews JS, Desai U, Kirson NY, Zichlin ML, Ball DE, Matthews BR. Disease severity and minimal clinically important differences in clinical outcome assessments for Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials. Alzheimers Dement (N Y). 2019;5:354–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Nikolovski A, Gamgoum L, Deol A, Quilichini S, Kazemir E, Rhodenizer J, Oliveira A, Brooks D, Alsubheen S. Psychometric properties of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in individuals with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2023;2023:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sukantarat KT, Williamson RC, Brett SJ. Psychological assessment of ICU survivors: a comparison between the Hospital anxiety and depression scale and the depression, anxiety and stress scale. Anaesthesia. 2007;62(3):239–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Puhan MA, Frey M, Büchi S, Schünemann HJ. The minimal important difference of the hospital anxiety and depression scale in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Asukai N, Kato H, Kawamura N, Kim Y, Yamamoto K, Kishimoto J, Miyake Y, Nishizono-Maher A. Reliability and validity of the Japanese-language version of the impact of event scale-revised (IES-R-J): four studies of different traumatic events. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2002;190(3):175–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wendlandt B, Ceppe A, Choudhury S, Cox CE, Hanson LC, Danis M, Tulsky JA, Nelson JE, Carson SS. Modifiable elements of ICU supportive care and communication are associated with surrogates’ PTSD symptoms. Intensive Care Med. 2019;45(5):619–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Löwe B, Unützer J, Callahan CM, Perkins AJ, Kroenke K. Monitoring depression treatment outcomes with the patient health questionnaire-9. Med Care. 2004;42(12):1194–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Sainsbury A, Seebass G, Bansal A, Young JB. Reliability of the Barthel Index when used with older people. Age Ageing. 2005;34(3):228–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Dos Reis NF, Figueiredo F, Biscaro RRM, Lunardelli EB, Maurici R. Psychometric Properties of the Barthel Index Used at Intensive Care Unit Discharge. Am J Crit Care. 2022;31(1):65–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Hsieh YW, Wang CH, Wu SC, Chen PC, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL. Establishing the minimal clinically important difference of the Barthel Index in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007;21(3):233–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Isik EI, Yilmaz S, Uysal I, Basar S. Adaptation of the Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale to Turkish: validity and reliability sStudy. Ann Geriatr Med Res. 2020;24(1):35–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Brosseau L, Wolfson C. The inter-rater reliability and construct validity of the Functional Independence Measure for multiple sclerosis subjects. Clin Rehabil. 1994;8(2):107–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Chen S, Su CL, Wu YT, Wang LY, Wu CP, Wu HD, Chiang LL. Physical training is beneficial to functional status and survival in patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation. J Formos Med Assoc. 2011;110(9):572–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, O’Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Usherwood T, Westlake L. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ. 1992;305(6846):160–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Bunevicius A. Reliability and validity of the SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire in patients with brain tumors: a cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Ogura K, Yakoub MA, Christ AB, Fujiwara T, Nikolic Z, Boland PJ, Healey JH. What are the minimum dlinically important differences in SF-36 scores in patients with orthopaedic oncologic conditions? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020;478(9):2148–58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Buchholz I, Janssen MF, Kohlmann T, Feng YS. A systematic review of studies comparing the measurement properties of the three-level and five-level versions of the EQ-5D. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(6):645–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Conner-Spady BL, Marshall DA, Bohm E, Dunbar MJ, Loucks L, Khudairy AA, Noseworthy TW. Reliability and validity of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in patients with osteoarthritis referred for hip and knee replacement. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(7):1775–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D. Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34(3):220–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Rener-Sitar K, John MT, Bandyopadhyay D, Howell MJ, Schiffman EL. Exploration of dimensionality and psychometric properties of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index in cases with temporomandibular disorders. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Gomes A, Marques D, Meiavia A, Cunha F, Clemente V. Psychometric properties and accuracy of the European Portuguese version of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index in clinical and non-clinical samples. Sleep Biol Rhythms. 2018;16:413–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Longo UG, Berton A, De Salvatore S, Piergentili I, Casciani E, Faldetta A, De Marinis MG, Denaro V. Minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index in patients who underwent rotator cuff tear repair. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(16):8666.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Pelayo-Alvarez M, Perez-Hoyos S, Agra-Varela Y. Reliability and concurrent validity of the Palliative Outcome Scale, the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist, and the Brief Pain Inventory. J Palliat Med. 2013;16(8):867–74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Parry SM, Nalamalapu SR, Nunna K, Rabiee A, Friedman LA, Colantuoni E, Needham DM, Dinglas VD. Six-minute walk distance after critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Intensive Care Med. 2021;36(3):343–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. van Gassel RJJ, Bels J, Remij L, van Bussel BCT, Posthuma R, Gietema HA, Verbunt J, van der Horst ICC, Olde Damink SWM, van Santen S, et al. Functional outcomes and their association with physical performance in mechanically ventilated Coronavirus Disease 2019 survivors at 3 months following hospital discharge: a cohort study. Crit Care Med. 2021;49:1726.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Turan Z, Topaloglu M, Ozyemisci Taskiran O. Medical Research Council-sumscore: a tool for evaluating muscle weakness in patients with post-intensive care syndrome. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):562.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Bragança RD, Ravetti CG, Barreto L, Ataíde T, Carneiro RM, Teixeira AL, Nobre V. Use of handgrip dynamometry for diagnosis and prognosis assessment of intensive care unit acquired weakness: a prospective study. Heart Lung. 2019;48(6):532–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Nakamura K, Kawasaki A, Suzuki N, Hosoi S, Fujita T, Hachisu S, Nakano H, Naraba H, Mochizuki M, Takahashi Y. Grip strength correlates with mental health and quality of life after critical care: a retrospective study in a post-intensive care syndrome clinic. J Clin Med. 2021;10(14):3044.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Rose L, Blackwood B, Needham DM, Devlin JW, Clarke M, Burry LD. group ftD-C: Measures for the core outcome set for research evaluating interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in critically ill adults: an international consensus study (Del-COrS). Crit Care Explor. 2023;5(4): e0884.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Wang S, Allen D, Perkins A, Monahan P, Khan S, Lasiter S, Boustani M, Khan B. Validation of a new clinical tool for Post-Intensive Care Syndrome. Am J Crit Care. 2019;28(1):10–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Schwitzer E, Jensen KS, Brinkman L, DeFrancia L, VanVleet J, Baqi E, Aysola R, Qadir N. Survival≠Recovery: a narrative review of post-intensive care syndrome. CHEST Crit Care. 2023;2023:100003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Pfoh ER, Chan KS, Dinglas VD, Girard TD, Jackson JC, Morris PE, Hough CL, Mendez-Tellez PA, Ely EW, Huang M, et al. Cognitive screening among acute respiratory failure survivors: a cross-sectional evaluation of the Mini-Mental State Examination. Crit Care. 2015;19(1):220.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Maki N, Ikeda M, Hokoishi K, Nebu A, Komori K, Hirono N, Tanabe H. The validity of the MMSE and SMQ as screening tests for dementia in the elderly general population—a study of one rural community in Japan. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2000;11(4):193–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Dimopoulos S, Leggett NE, Deane AM, Haines KJ, Abdelhamid YA. Models of intensive care unit follow-up care and feasibility of intervention delivery: a systematic review. Aust Crit Care 2023. https://www.australiancriticalcare.com/article/S1036-7314(23)00060-7/fulltext.

  66. Weiss DS. The impact of event scale: revised. In: Cross-cultural assessment of psychological trauma and PTSD. New York, NY, US: Springer; 2007: 219–38.

  67. Bienvenu OJ, Williams JB, Yang A, Hopkins RO, Needham DM. Posttraumatic stress disorder in survivors of acute lung injury: evaluating the Impact of Event Scale-Revised. Chest. 2013;144(1):24–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Lichtman JH, Bigger JT Jr, Blumenthal JA, Frasure-Smith N, Kaufmann PG, Lespérance F, Mark DB, Sheps DS, Taylor CB, Froelicher ES. Depression and coronary heart disease: recommendations for screening, referral, and treatment: a science advisory from the American Heart Association Prevention Committee of the Council on Cardiovascular Nursing, Council on Clinical Cardiology, Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, and Interdisciplinary Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research: endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association. Circulation. 2008;118(17):1768–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Evans RA, McAuley H, Harrison EM, Shikotra A, Singapuri A, Sereno M, Elneima O, Docherty AB, Lone NI, Leavy OC, et al. Physical, cognitive, and mental health impacts of COVID-19 after hospitalisation (PHOSP-COVID): a UK multicentre, prospective cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9(11):1275–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, Horne V. The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud. 1988;10(2):61–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Potter KM, Danesh V, Butcher BW, Eaton TL, McDonald AD, Girard TD. Return to driving after critical illness. JAMA Intern Med. 2023;183(5):493–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Dodds TA, Martin DP, Stolov WC, Deyo RA. A validation of the functional independence measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74(5):531–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Linacre JM, Heinemann AW, Wright BD, Granger CV, Hamilton BB. The structure and stability of the Functional Independence Measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;75(2):127–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Lin Y, Yu Y, Zeng J, Zhao X, Wan C. Comparing the reliability and validity of the SF-36 and SF-12 in measuring quality of life among adolescents in China: a large sample cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):360.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Wee CC, Davis RB, Hamel MB. Comparing the SF-12 and SF-36 health status questionnaires in patients with and without obesity. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Zimmermann T, Brederecke J, Kopsch F, Herschbach P. Psychometric properties of the questionnaire on stress in partners of cancer patients. Eval Health Prof. 2022;45(2):147–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Wang S, Meeker JW, Perkins AJ, Gao S, Khan SH, Sigua NL, Manchanda S, Boustani MA, Khan BA. Psychiatric symptoms and their association with sleep disturbances in intensive care unit survivors. Int J Gen Med. 2019;12:125–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Guimarães-Pereira L, Reis P, Abelha F, Azevedo LF, Castro-Lopes JM. Persistent postoperative pain after cardiac surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis regarding incidence and pain intensity. Pain. 2017;158(10):1869–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Buysse DJ, Reynolds CF 3rd, Monk TH, Berman SR, Kupfer DJ. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a new instrument for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatry Res. 1989;28(2):193–213.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Cleeland CS, Ryan KM. Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singap. 1994;23(2):129–38.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Rousseau A-F, Prescott HC, Brett SJ, Weiss B, Azoulay E, Creteur J, Latronico N, Hough CL, Weber-Carstens S, Vincent J-L, et al. Long-term outcomes after critical illness: recent insights. Crit Care. 2021;25(1):108.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Hiser SL, Fatima A, Ali M, Needham DM. Post-intensive care syndrome (PICS): recent updates. J Intensive Care. 2023;11(1):23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Shirasaki K, Hifumi T, Isokawa S, Hashiuchi S, Tanaka S, Yanagisawa Y, Takahashi O, Otani N. Postintensive Care Syndrome-Family associated with COVID-19 infection. Crit Care Explor. 2022;4(7): e0725.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Serrano P, Kheir YNP, Wang S, Khan S, Scheunemann L, Khan B. Aging and postintensive care syndrome-family: a critical need for geriatric psychiatry. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2019;27(4):446–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Davidson JE, Powers K, Hedayat KM, Tieszen M, Kon AA, Shepard E, Spuhler V, Todres ID, Levy M, Barr J, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for support of the family in the patient-centered intensive care unit: American College of Critical Care Medicine Task Force 2004–2005. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(2):605–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Zante B, Camenisch SA, Schefold JC. Interventions in Post-Intensive Care Syndrome-Family: a systematic literature review. Crit Care Med. 2020;48(9):e835–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Kobe University Clinical and Translational Research Center for their statistical support.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Disaster and Emergency Medicine, Department of Surgery Related, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, 7-5-2 Kusunoki, Chuo-ward, Kobe, 650-0017, Japan

    Nobuto Nakanishi & Shigeaki Inoue

  2. Critical Care Research Group, The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, 4032, Australia

    Keibun Liu

  3. Institute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4067, Australia

    Keibun Liu

  4. Non-Profit Organization ICU Collaboration Network (ICON), Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan

    Keibun Liu

  5. Department of Critical Care and Emergency Medicine, Japanese Red Cross Maebashi Hospital, 389-1, Asakura-Machi, Maebashi-shi, Gunma, 371-0811, Japan

    Akira Kawauchi & Mamoru Masuda

  6. Berlin Institute of Health Center for Regenerative Therapies (BCRT), Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany

    Masatsugu Okamura

  7. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Osaka Police Hospital, 10-31 Kitayama, Tennouji, Osaka, 543-0035, Japan

    Kohei Tanaka

  8. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Okayama University Hospital, 2-5-1 Shikata, Kitaku, Okayama, 700-8558, Japan

    Sho Katayama

  9. Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, 1-2-3 Kasumi, Minami-ku, Hiroshima, 734-8551, Japan

    Yuki Mitani, Kohei Ota, Yuki Masuka, Shu Utsumi & Mitsuaki Nishikimi

  10. Division of Rehabilitation, Department of Clinical Practice and Support, Hiroshima University Hospital, Hiroshima, 734-8551, Japan

    Shunsuke Taito & Kenichi Fudeyasu

  11. Department of Pharmaceutical Services, Hiroshima University Hospital, Hiroshima, 734-8551, Japan

    Shodai Yoshihiro

  12. Department of Physical Therapy, Toyohashi SOZO University School of Health Sciences, 20-1, Matsushita, Ushikawa, Toyohashi, 440-8511, Japan

    Yuki Iida

  13. Department of Nursing, Fujita Health University Hospital, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake-cho, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan

    Yusuke Kawai

  14. Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, 2-7, Daigaku-machi, Takatsuki, Osaka, 569-8686, Japan

    Junji Hatakeyama

  15. Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, St. Luke’s International Hospital, 9-1, Akashi-cho, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-8560, Japan

    Toru Hifumi

  16. Department of Acute and Critical Care Nursing, School of Nursing, Sapporo City University, Kita 11 Nishi 13, Chuo-ku, Sapporo, 060-0011, Japan

    Takeshi Unoki

  17. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Iizuka Hospital, 3-83, Yoshio-machi, Iizuka, Fukuoka, 820-8505, Japan

    Daisuke Kawakami

  18. Department of Rehabilitation, Japanese Red Cross Okayama Hospital, 2-1-1 Aoe, Kita-ward, Okayama, 700-8607, Japan

    Kengo Obata

  19. Department of Scientific Research, Japanese Society for Early Mobilization, 1-2-12, Kudan-kita, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 102-0073, Japan

    Hajime Katsukawa

  20. Clinic Sumita, 305-12, Minamiyamashinden, Ina-cho, Toyokawa, Aichi, 441-0105, Japan

    Hidenori Sumita

  21. Department of Physical Therapy, Juntendo University, 2-1-1, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan

    Tomoyuki Morisawa

  22. Department of Rehabilitation, Sapporo General Hospital, Kita11-Nishi13, Chuou-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-8604, Japan

    Masahiro Takahashi

  23. Department of Critical Care and Anesthesia, National Center for Child Health and Development, 2-10-1 Okura, Setagaya, Tokyo, 157-8535, Japan

    Norihiko Tsuboi

  24. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Nagasaki University Hospital, 1-7-1 Sakamoto, Nagasaki, 852-8501, Japan

    Ryo Kozu

  25. Department of Physical Therapy Science, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, 1-7-1 Sakamoto, Nagasaki, 852-8520, Japan

    Ryo Kozu

  26. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Yokohama City University Hospital, 3-9 Fukuura, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 236-0004, Japan

    Shunsuke Takaki & Kensuke Nakamura

  27. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Sapporo Medical University, South-1, West-16, Chuo-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido, 060-8543, Japan

    Junpei Haruna

  28. Department of Emergency Medicine, Kakogawa Central City Hospital, 439 Kakogawacho Honmachi, Kakogawa-city, Hyogo, 675-8611, Japan

    Yoshihisa Fujinami

  29. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8510, Japan

    Nobuyuki Nosaka

  30. Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Wakayama Medical University, 811-1 Kimiidera, Wakayama, Wakayama, 641-8509, Japan

    Kyohei Miyamoto

  31. Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Juntendo University Urayasu Hospital, Urayasu, 279-0021, Japan

    Yutaka Kondo

  32. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake-cho, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan

    Osamu Nishida

Authors
  1. Nobuto Nakanishi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Keibun Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Akira Kawauchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Masatsugu Okamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kohei Tanaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sho Katayama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yuki Mitani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kohei Ota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Shunsuke Taito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Kenichi Fudeyasu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Yuki Masuka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Shodai Yoshihiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Shu Utsumi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Mitsuaki Nishikimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Mamoru Masuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Yuki Iida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Yusuke Kawai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Junji Hatakeyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Toru Hifumi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Takeshi Unoki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Daisuke Kawakami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Kengo Obata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Hajime Katsukawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Hidenori Sumita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  25. Tomoyuki Morisawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  26. Masahiro Takahashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  27. Norihiko Tsuboi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  28. Ryo Kozu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  29. Shunsuke Takaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  30. Junpei Haruna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  31. Yoshihisa Fujinami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  32. Nobuyuki Nosaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  33. Kyohei Miyamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  34. Kensuke Nakamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  35. Yutaka Kondo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  36. Shigeaki Inoue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  37. Osamu Nishida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization was developed by KN and KL; methodology was analyzed by YK; data analysis and extraction in the scoping review were perfomed by AK, KT, MO, SK, NN, KR, YM, KO, ST, KF, YM, SY, SU, MN, and MM; Involvement in the modified Delphi meeting was conducted by NN, KL, KO, YI, YK, JH, TH, TU, DK, KO, HK, HS, TM, MT, NT, RK, ST, JH, YF, NN, KM, KN, and SI; data curation in the modified Delphi meeting was carried out by KM; writing—original draft preparation was provided by NN; supervision was done by SI and ON; project administration was approved by KN; funding acquisition was given by KN. All authors were involved in the reviewing and editing of the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kensuke Nakamura.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1. 1

. Search strategy, 2. Summarized materials used in Delphi meeting, 3. The study included in scoping review, 4. Results of the scoping review at hospital discharge, 5. Results of the scoping review after hospital discharge. Table S1. Reference list of 754 included studies in scoping review. Table S2. Extracted PICS assessment at hospital discharge. Table S3. Extracted PICS assessment after hospital discharge.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nakanishi, N., Liu, K., Kawauchi, A. et al. Instruments to assess post-intensive care syndrome assessment: a scoping review and modified Delphi method study. Crit Care 27, 430 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04681-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04681-6

Keywords

Critical Care

ISSN: 1364-8535