ArticleIntensive care medicine2026
Early mobilization for mechanical ventilation for sepsis or acute respiratory failure (EVER): a multicenter randomized controlled trial with 12-month outcomes.
Article in Intensive care medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04582760 (Clinical Effect of Early Mobilization in Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure or Sepsis Requiring Mechanical Ventilation), which is not on this 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.
Clinical Effect of Early Mobilization in Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure or Sepsis Requiring Mechanical Ventilation (Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial by the Korean ICU Early Mobilization Network)
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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeEarly mobilization is recommended for adults on mechanical ventilation, but the timing, the dose, and the real-world effectiveness, particularly in Asian ICUs, remain unclear. We assessed whether a structured six-step early mobilization programme enhances functional status at ICU discharge and longer-term recovery.
methodsA multicenter, randomized, open-label study was conducted across five tertiary hospitals in South Korea (September 2020 to July 2024). Adult patients with sepsis or respiratory failure anticipated to require invasive ventilation for ≥ 48 h were randomly assigned (1:1) to the intervention or usual care. The primary outcome was the FSS-ICU at ICU discharge. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, muscle strength, physical performance, and patient-reported outcomes evaluated at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle.
resultsWe enrolled 169 participants (93 intervention; 76 usual care). At ICU discharge, the FSS-ICU did not differ between groups (mean 23.6 [SD 11.8] vs. 22.2 [SD 10.8]; P = 0.44). The intervention group began mobilization earlier (median 30.0 vs. 45.9 h), underwent more sessions (median 11 vs. 4), and accumulated more mobilization time (median 330 vs. 120 min). Patients achieving mobilization Step ≥ 4 (sit to stand or higher) had higher FSS-ICU at ICU discharge compared with matched usual care (mean 30.6 vs. 23.3; P < 0.01). Long-term outcomes (EQ-5D, SF-36 PCS/MCS, IES-R-K, MoCA-BLIND, and PICS) improved similarly in both groups over 12 months without significant differences.
conclusionsIn this multicenter randomized controlled trial of mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis or acute respiratory failure, a protocolized early mobilization program did not improve functional status at ICU discharge or at 12 months compared with usual care.
trial registrationNCT04582760, registered 12 October 2020.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42645557What 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.