ArticleFrontiers in neurology2026
Early mobilization in the neurotrauma intensive care unit: a service evaluation of current practice and barriers.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Early mobilization (EM) refers to active exercise commenced while patients are on the intensive care unit (ICU). Although the benefits of EM are well established in general ICU populations, evidence specific to the neurotrauma intensive care unit (NTICU) remains limited. This service evaluation aimed to review current EM practices in a single-center NTICU and explore the perceived barriers to EM implementation. Method: A service evaluation was conducted from 5th December 2023 to 28th March 2024, including all patients resident in the NTICU. During this period, patients underwent daily physiotherapy assessments, at which data were prospectively recorded for the suitability for EM, and barriers to EM, where this was not performed. Mobility status was quantified using the Manchester Mobility Scale (MMS), with mobilization defined as an MMS ≥ 2 (i.e., sitting on the edge of the bed or higher). Data for patient characteristics and outcomes were retrospectively collected from the electronic health record system. Results: Of 253 patients included in the service evaluation, EM (i.e., MMS ≥ 2 in the NTICU) was achieved in 149 (58.9%), with a further 76 (30.0%) mobilized on the ward after being discharged from NTICU. The most common primary barriers to EM were sedation (38.4%) and the need for acute medical care (33.9%). Logistical and process issues were the primary barrier to EM in 15.4% of assessments, most commonly insufficient staffing. Conclusion: This service evaluation is the first known report of perceived barriers to EM in a UK-based NTICU. Targeted strategies to address modifiable barriers may facilitate earlier mobilization within major trauma services. Further research is needed to evaluate the safety and impact of NTICU-specific EM protocols.
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.