Trial reportIntensive care medicine2026
Individualised treatment effects of enhanced early mobilisation in mechanically ventilated patients: a secondary analysis of the TEAM trial.
Trial report in Intensive care medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rehabilitation and the post-intensive care syndrome across the recovery continuum: a narrative review.Intensive care medicine · 2026Review
- Functional and muscle recovery after critical illness: current and future nutritional, physical and metabolic strategies.Annals of intensive care · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeBenefit or harm from early mobilisation (EM) in mechanically ventilated patients may vary by individual patient characteristics. We used machine learning to predict individualised treatment effects (ITEs) in the "Early Active Mobilization during Mechanical Ventilation in the ICU" (TEAM) trial.
methodsThis was a secondary analysis of the TEAM trial using a causal inference approach to estimate ITEs, which compared enhanced EM to usual care EM. Baseline variables in the original publication were used as predictor variables. The primary outcome was death by day 180. The dataset was randomly split into two halves (train and test) by site. In the training data, fivefold cross-validation was used to compare six candidate machine learning algorithms. The best-performing model was evaluated in the test dataset. Patients were stratified into tertiles based on predicted ITEs, reflecting estimated benefit, no effect or harm.
resultsWe included 687 patients from 40 sites, and 141 (20.5%) patients died by day 180. Predicted ITEs in the test cohort ranged from an absolute 34.0% reduction to a 39.3% increase in mortality with enhanced EM. The interaction term between the model predictions and treatment assignment demonstrated significant heterogeneity of treatment effect (p = 0.006). Patients predicted to respond poorly to enhanced EM therapy were more likely to receive vasopressors, have diabetes and have lower RASS scores at baseline, compared to patients predicted to have benefit.
conclusionUsing baseline characteristics, a machine learning model identified patients with estimated benefit or harm with enhanced EM. Future testing of a personalised approach to mobilisation in the ICU is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.