***TASK***
the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***INPUT***
the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature

***OUTPUT***
the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***DOCUMENTATION***

***EXAMPLES***

Input: We included four RCTs (a total of 690 participants), in this review. Participants were adults who were mechanically ventilated in a general, medical or surgical ICU, with mean or median age in the studies ranging from 56 to 62 years. Admitting diagnoses in three of the four studies were indicative of critical illness, while participants in the fourth study had undergone cardiac surgery. Three studies included range-of-motion exercises, bed mobility activities, transfers and ambulation. The fourth study involved only upper limb exercises. Included studies were at high risk of performance bias, as they were not blinded to participants and personnel, and two of four did not blind outcome assessors. Three of four studies reported only on those participants who completed the study, with high rates of dropout. The description of intervention type, dose, intensity and frequency in the standard care control group was poor in two of four studies. Three studies (a total of 454 participants) reported at least one measure of physical function. One study (104 participants) reported low-quality evidence of beneficial effects in the intervention group on return to independent functional status at hospital discharge (59% versus 35%, risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 2.64); the absolute effect is that 246 more people (95% CI 38 to 567) per 1000 would attain independent functional status when provided with early mobilization. The effects on physical functioning are uncertain for a range measures: Barthel Index scores (early mobilization: median 75 control: versus 55, low quality evidence), number of ADLs achieved at ICU (median of 3 versus 0, low quality evidence) or at hospital discharge (median of 6 versus 4, low quality evidence). The effects of early mobilization on physical function measured at ICU discharge are uncertain, as measured by the Acute Care Index of Function (ACIF) (early mobilization mean: 61.1 versus control: 55, mean difference (MD) 6.10, 95% CI -11.85 to 24.05, low quality evidence) and the Physical Function ICU Test (PFIT) score (5.6 versus 5.4, MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.98 to 1.38, low quality evidence). There is low quality evidence that early mobilization may have little or no effect on physical function measured by the Short Physical Performance Battery score at ICU discharge from one study of 184 participants (mean 1.6 in the intervention group versus 1.9 in usual care, MD -0.30, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.50), or at hospital discharge (MD 0, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.90). The fourth study, which examined postoperative cardiac surgery patients did not measure physical function as an outcome. Adverse effects were reported across the four studies but we could not combine the data. Our certainty in the risk of adverse events with either mobilization strategy is low due to the low rate of events. One study reported that in the intervention group one out of 49 participants (2%) experienced oxygen desaturation less than 80% and one of 49 (2%) had accidental dislodgement of the radial catheter. This study also found cessation of therapy due to participant instability occurred in 19 of 498 (4%) of the intervention sessions. In another study five of 101 (5%) participants in the intervention group and five of 109 (4.6%) participants in the control group had postoperative pulmonary complications deemed to be unrelated to intervention. A third study found one of 150 participants in the intervention group had an episode of asymptomatic bradycardia, but completed the exercise session. The fourth study reported no adverse events. There is insufficient evidence on the effect of early mobilization of critically ill people in the ICU on physical function or performance, adverse events, muscle strength and health-related quality of life at this time. The four studies awaiting classification, and the three ongoing studies may alter the conclusions of the review once these results are available. We assessed that there is currently low-quality evidence for the effect of early mobilization of critically ill adults in the ICU due to small sample sizes, lack of blinding of participants and personnel, variation in the interventions and outcomes used to measure their effect and inadequate descriptions of the interventions delivered as usual care in the studies included in this Cochrane Review.
Output:

We found four studies that included a total of 690 adults who had been in the ICU. Patients were randomized to receive exercises and assistance to move early in their stay in the ICU or to usual care. All participants had been on a breathing machine at some point during their time in the ICU. Three studies included adults with critical illness involving severe disease of the lungs or severe body response to infection and one study involved adults who had undergone cardiac surgery. One study was funded by the Intensive Care Foundation, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Australia and the investigator was supported by a Postgraduate Award from Singapore. We were unable to determine whether early movement or exercise of critically ill people in the ICU improves their ability to do daily activities, muscle strength, or quality of life. There were mixed results on the effect of early movement or exercise on physical function. One study found that on some measures of physical function, participants who received the intervention could get out of bed earlier and walk greater distances. However, the same study found no differences in the number of daily activities they could do when leaving ICU. Early movement or exercise appears safe as the number of adverse events was very low. There was no difference between groups in time spent in hospital, muscle strength or death rates. Overall there was low-quality evidence from these studies. The main reasons were that only a small number of studies have examined this intervention. Most studies included only a small number of participants, and participants and study staff were aware of group assignment. In addition, in two studies, staff assessing outcomes were aware of group assignment. There were also differences in participant diagnoses, interventions and the way that outcomes were measured. The four studies awaiting classification, and the three ongoing studies may alter the conclusions of the review once these results are available. Evidence in this review is current to August 2017.