1Department of Critical Care Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
2Transplant Research Center, Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan, Korea
3Division of Allergy, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Yangsan, Korea
4Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
5Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
6College of Nursing, Dong-A University, Busan, Korea
7Institute for Evidence-Based Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
8Cochrane Korea, Seoul, Korea
9Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
10Department of Critical Care Medicine, Uijeongbu Eulji Medical Center, Eulji University College of Medicine, Uijeongbu, Korea
11Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Korea
12Physical Therapy Unit, Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
13Occupational Therapy Unit, Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
14Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Yongin Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yongin, Korea
15Department of Biomedical Informatics, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea
16Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, Ajou University Medical Center, Suwon, Korea
17Department of Medical Sciences, Graduate School of Ajou University, Suwon, Korea
18Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
19Department of Surgery, Ewha Womans University Seoul Hospital, Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
20Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea
21Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
22Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Chungnam National University College of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea
23Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Chungnam National University Hospital, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea
24Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Korea
25Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Jeonbuk National University Medical School, Research Institute of Clinical Medicine of Jeonbuk National University, Biomedical Research Institute of Jeonbuk National University Hospital, Jeonju, Korea
26Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Ajou University Hospital, Suwon, Korea
27College of Nursing, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea
28Division of Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
29Department of Nursing, Changwon National University, Changwon, Korea
30Department of Critical Care Nursing, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea
31Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
32Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
Correspondence: Gee Young Suh Department of Critical Care Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06351, Korea. Tel: +82-2-3410-3429 Fax: +82-2-2148-7088 E-mail: smccritcare@gmail.com
*These authors contributed equally to this study. This clinical practice guideline was jointly developed by the Korean Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine and the Korean Society of Critical Care Medicine and was published simultaneously in Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine and Acute and Critical Care on August 31, 2026.
• Received: June 22, 2026 • Revised: August 10, 2026 • Accepted: August 19, 2026
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Survivors of critical illness commonly experience persistent physical, cognitive, and psychological impairments, collectively known as post-intensive care syndrome. Although intensive care unit (ICU) rehabilitation is now recognized as an important part of recovery after critical illness, rehabilitation practices remain inconsistent, and clinical practice guidelines adapted to the Korean healthcare context have not been available.
Methods
These clinical practice guidelines were developed de novo by a multidisciplinary panel comprising critical care physicians, rehabilitation specialists, nurses, and allied health professionals. The panel prioritized 15 key clinical questions addressing adult, pediatric, and neonatal ICU (NICU) rehabilitation. Systematic literature searches were conducted in Medline via PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed, and the final searches for all 15 questions were completed by November 30, 2024. The certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations were assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Final recommendations were approved through a structured consensus process requiring at least 70% panel agreement.
Results
The panel issued 15 recommendations across major rehabilitation domains, including early structured rehabilitation, criteria for withholding or discontinuing therapy, adjunctive modalities, rehabilitation frequency, inspiratory muscle training, swallowing rehabilitation, cognitive and occupational therapy, nutritional support, neonatal and pediatric ICU rehabilitation, and post-ICU follow-up care. Thirteen recommendations were conditional, whereas two were strong, mainly because they addressed patient safety.
Conclusion
These guidelines provide evidence-informed recommendations for rehabilitation in critically ill patients across adult, pediatric, and NICUs in Korea. They are designed to standardize practice, improve patient safety, support patient-centered functional recovery beyond survival, and identify priorities for future research.
Advances in critical care have improved survival among patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs), but survival alone does not indicate full recovery [1,2]. Many ICU survivors have persistent physical, cognitive, and psychological impairments after discharge, collectively referred to as post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) [3,4]. In a Korean multicenter prospective cohort, the prevalence of PICS remained approximately 40%–50% at 3, 6, and 12 months after ICU discharge, and some survivors had impairments in multiple domains [5]. These long-term sequelae are associated with functional dependence, lower quality of life, greater healthcare use, and caregiver burden [4,6]. Accordingly, the goals of critical care have expanded beyond survival to include functional recovery and long-term patient-centered outcomes [7].
Rehabilitation during and after critical illness is now regarded as an essential component of ICU care [8]. Evidence supports selected interventions, including early structured rehabilitation, respiratory and swallowing rehabilitation, cognitive and occupational therapy, adjunctive modalities, nutritional support, and post-ICU follow-up care; however, the certainty of evidence differs by intervention and population [9-21]. Several international guidelines have addressed ICU rehabilitation, but applying them directly to Korean practice is difficult because healthcare systems, staffing models, reimbursement structures, resource availability, and implementation feasibility differ across settings. Existing guidelines have also focused mainly on adult ICU populations and early mobilization, with less detailed guidance on pediatric and neonatal ICU (NICU) rehabilitation or post-ICU recovery. Therefore, we developed Korean clinical practice guidelines for rehabilitation in critically ill patients using de novo systematic reviews, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, and multidisciplinary consensus. These guidelines address adult, pediatric, and NICU populations and support safe, standardized, patient-centered rehabilitation practices adapted to local resources and individual patient circumstances.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Guideline development and scope
These clinical practice guidelines were developed de novo by a multidisciplinary panel through systematic evidence synthesis, the GRADE framework, and a structured consensus process [22,23].
The panel included specialists in critical care medicine, rehabilitation medicine, respiratory medicine, surgery, pediatric rehabilitation, nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech-language pathology, nutrition, and related allied health disciplines. The guideline covered rehabilitation during and after ICU care across adult, pediatric, and neonatal populations, including physical, respiratory, swallowing, cognitive, and occupational rehabilitation; nutritional support; adjunctive rehabilitation modalities; and post-ICU follow-up care. Although these recommendations are presented in a single guideline document, the adult, pediatric, and neonatal recommendations were developed around population-specific key clinical questions (KQs). They should therefore be applied only to the population specified for each recommendation, without extrapolation across age groups. This clinical practice guideline was developed and reported in accordance with the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare statement. A Korean-language summary of the KQ-specific recommendation statements is provided in Supplementary Appendix S1.
KQs and outcomes
Fifteen KQs were selected by panel consensus according to clinical importance, practice variation, relevance to the Korean healthcare context, and gaps in existing evidence. Each KQ was structured using the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome framework. Outcomes were classified a priori as critical, important, or less important for decision-making according to GRADE guidance.
Literature search and evidence synthesis
Systematic literature searches were conducted in Medline via PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed from database inception, with final searches for all 15 KQs completed by November 30, 2024 Supplementary Methods S1. Methodology experts and KQ-specific working group members developed the search strategies. Searches were not restricted by publication year, language, or publication status. For each KQ, at least two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles according to predefined eligibility criteria Supplementary Methods S2. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or adjudication by another panel member Supplementary Methods S3. Study selection was summarized in Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagrams [24]. Data were extracted at the outcome level. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed when studies were sufficiently homogeneous in population, intervention, comparator, and outcome; otherwise, the evidence was synthesized narratively.
Risk of bias and certainty of evidence
Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias using validated study design–specific tools: the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool for randomized controlled trials [25], Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) for nonrandomized studies of interventions [26], and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) for diagnostic accuracy studies [27]. Disagreements were resolved by consensus Supplementary Methods S4. The certainty of evidence for each critical and important outcome was assessed using the GRADE framework, with consideration of risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, publication bias, magnitude of effect, dose–response gradient, and plausible residual confounding, as applicable Supplementary Methods S5.
Formulation of recommendations
Recommendations were formulated using the GRADE Evidence-to-Decision framework [23]. The panel considered desirable and undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, patient values and preferences, the balance of effects, resource requirements, feasibility, equity, acceptability, and applicability to Korean clinical practice Supplementary Methods S6. Recommendation strength and direction were classified as strong for, conditional for, conditional against, strong against, inconclusive, or expert consensus. Patient and caregiver perspectives were incorporated through a structured experience-based survey of ICU survivors and family caregivers, which was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Samsung Medical Center (No. 2024-02-029). Written informed consent was obtained from each ICU survivor or family caregiver before participation in the survey.
Assigned working groups drafted the recommendations, which were then discussed by the full panel and finalized through anonymous blinded electronic voting. A valid vote required participation by at least 70% of eligible panel members, and consensus was predefined as at least 70% agreement among participating voters. Recommendations that did not reach consensus were revised after further discussion and submitted for another vote Supplementary Methods S7. Detailed search strategies, eligibility criteria, PRISMA flow diagrams, risk-of-bias assessments, summary-of-findings tables, forest plots, Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, and aggregate voting results are provided in Supplementary Appendices S2-S8. The guideline will be reviewed every 3 to 5 years, or earlier if new high-quality evidence, major safety concerns, new rehabilitation technologies, or relevant policy changes are expected to alter the recommendations.
RESULTS
Summary of recommendations
These guidelines addressed 15 KQs on rehabilitation during and after critical illness across adult, pediatric, and NICU populations. Using the GRADE framework and a structured multidisciplinary consensus process, the panel formulated 15 recommendations. Two recommendations were strong: one addressed predefined criteria for withholding or discontinuing physical rehabilitation, and the other addressed swallowing rehabilitation for post-extubation dysphagia. The remaining 13 recommendations were conditional because the evidence was limited or heterogeneous, patient populations and interventions varied, and implementation must be individualized according to clinical stability, patient characteristics, institutional resources, and patient or family preferences. The certainty of evidence was moderate for six recommendations, low for four, and very low for five. Table 1 summarizes all recommendations. Summary-of-findings tables and forest plots for each KQ are provided in Supplementary Tables S1-S15 and the Supplementary Figures, respectively.
General implementation and population-specific considerations
These guidelines provide an evidence-informed framework, not a single prescriptive bedside protocol for all critically ill patients. Practical implementation should include daily assessment of clinical stability and rehabilitation eligibility; selection of rehabilitation modality, dose, and intensity according to baseline function, consciousness, participation, and rehabilitation goals; stepwise progression with continuous physiological and device monitoring; predefined criteria for withholding, stopping, reassessing, and resuming rehabilitation; and multidisciplinary documentation, communication, and periodic audit. Institutional protocols should be adapted to available personnel, equipment, monitoring capacity, and other local resources.
Additional precautions should be tailored to the clinical population. In medical ICU patients, clinicians should consider respiratory reserve, hemodynamic support, delirium, and ICU-acquired weakness. In surgical patients, rehabilitation planning should incorporate postoperative restrictions, pain control, wound integrity, drains, and procedure-specific precautions. In trauma patients, weight-bearing restrictions, spinal or fracture precautions, neurological status, bleeding risk, and device stability should be reviewed before rehabilitation begins. These considerations are intended to support implementation and do not constitute separate evidence-graded recommendations. Adult, pediatric, and neonatal recommendations should be interpreted as population-specific modules and should not be extrapolated across age groups. Future updates may be organized as separate population-specific modules as the evidence base and implementation experience expand.
KEY QUESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Structured early rehabilitation in critically ill patients admitted to the ICU
KQ 1. Is structured early rehabilitation beneficial for critically ill patients admitted to the ICU?
Recommendation: We suggest providing structured early rehabilitation soon after ICU admission in critically ill patients, provided that hemodynamic instability or other major contraindications are absent. (Conditional recommendation for; moderate certainty of evidence)
Structured rehabilitation refers to a program in which eligibility criteria, patient assessment procedures, and rehabilitation protocols are predefined and delivered through a standardized process. Previous European and Japanese guidelines have recommended initiating early mobilization within 72 hours after ICU admission [11,17,28]. However, the optimal timing, specific components, and safety of rehabilitation remain uncertain across heterogeneous ICU populations.
Evidence summary and rationale
Nine randomized controlled trials compared structured early rehabilitation initiated within 3 days after ICU admission with usual care [29-37]. At ICU discharge, structured early rehabilitation produced a clinically meaningful improvement in physical function (standardized mean difference [SMD], 1.48; 95% CI, 1.18–1.77; 3 studies; moderate certainty). At hospital discharge, muscle strength was significantly greater in the early rehabilitation group (mean difference [MD], 9.85 points; 95% CI, 8.77–10.94; 3 studies; moderate certainty), whereas activities of daily living did not differ significantly (SMD, 0.13; 95% CI, -0.11 to 0.37; 3 studies; low certainty). ICU and hospital length of stay were statistically shorter (MD, -0.59 days and -0.68 days, respectively), but these absolute reductions did not reach predefined minimally clinically important differences. Hospital mortality did not differ significantly (relative risk [RR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.35–1.28; 3 studies; moderate certainty). Adverse events were more frequent with early rehabilitation (RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.40–2.36; 2 studies; low certainty), but serious events were rare, and most events resolved after temporary interruption or discontinuation. Details are provided in Supplementary Table S1 and Supplementary Figs. S1.1-S1.6.
Implementation considerations
The panel judged that the desirable effects probably outweigh potential harms when rehabilitation is delivered to clinically stable patients under predefined safety criteria. Implementation should rely on institutional protocols that address screening, eligibility, contraindications, stepwise mobilization, monitoring, stopping criteria, adverse-event reporting, and multidisciplinary coordination.
Criteria for withholding or stopping physical rehabilitation in adult ICU patients
KQ 2. Does applying predefined criteria for withholding or stopping physical rehabilitation improve safety outcomes in critically ill adult patients compared with not applying such criteria?
Recommendation: We recommend that institutions establish and consistently apply predefined criteria for withholding or stopping physical rehabilitation in critically ill patients. (Strong recommendation for; very low certainty of evidence)
This recommendation was graded as strong despite very low certainty because predefined safety criteria address preventable harm, require few additional resources, are broadly acceptable, and align with patient and caregiver values that prioritize safety.
Evidence summary and rationale
No randomized or observational studies directly compared rehabilitation delivered with predefined withholding or stopping criteria with rehabilitation delivered without such criteria. Evidence was therefore derived indirectly from 13 randomized controlled trials of ICU physical rehabilitation in which physiological thresholds or safety criteria were prespecified and adverse events were systematically reported [30,32,34,35,38-46]. Across the included trials, the pooled incidence of cardiovascular and respiratory adverse events was approximately 1%, patient-related events occurred in approximately 1%–2% of patients, and catheter- or device-related events were rare. Serious adverse events were uncommon, and most events resolved after rehabilitation was paused, modified, or discontinued. However, event definitions, monitoring intensity, rehabilitation dose, intervention type, and patient case mix varied substantially across studies. Because no direct comparator was available and the evidence was indirect, inconsistent, and imprecise, the certainty of evidence was rated as very low.
Implementation considerations
The panel judged that the safety benefits of predefined criteria outweigh the potential risk of unnecessarily interrupting rehabilitation. These criteria should not be used as rigid cutoffs; instead, they should support structured risk assessment, real-time monitoring, intensity modification, reassessment, and safe resumption. Institutions should adapt criteria to local resources, monitoring capacity, and rehabilitation protocols and incorporate them into daily screening, checklists, electronic records, staff education, adverse-event reporting, and audit. Examples of suggested criteria are provided in Table 2. Details are provided in Supplementary Table S2 and Supplementary Figs. S2.1 and S2.2.
Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) and in-bed cycle ergometry as adjunctive rehabilitation modalities
KQ 3. Should NMES or in-bed cycle ergometry be used as adjunctive rehabilitation modalities in critically ill patients admitted to the ICU?
Recommendation: We suggest using NMES or in-bed cycle ergometry as adjunctive rehabilitation modalities in critically ill patients admitted to the ICU. (Conditional recommendation for; very low certainty of evidence)
Evidence summary and rationale
Thirty-one randomized controlled trials evaluated NMES, in-bed cycle ergometry, or both in adult ICU patients [38,39,42,47-74]. NMES was associated with a significantly shorter hospital length of stay (MD, -5.13 days; 95% CI,-8.84 to -1.41; 4 studies; low certainty). However, its effects were uncertain for muscle strength, assessed using the Medical Research Council (MRC) sum score (SMD, 0.49; 95% CI, -0.09 to 1.07; 9 studies); muscle mass (SMD, 0.71; 95% CI, -0.36 to 1.78; 8 studies); ICU length of stay (MD, -3.15 days; 95% CI, -8.88 to 2.59; 5 studies); and duration of mechanical ventilation (MD, -5.45 days; 95% CI, -10.92 to 0.02; 6 studies), with very low certainty for most outcomes. In-bed cycle ergometry improved 6-minute walking distance (MD, 83.85 m; 95% CI, 67.63–100.14; 3 studies; very low certainty) and shortened hospital length of stay (MD, -3.31 days; 95% CI, -5.76 to -0.85; 2 studies; very low certainty), but it did not significantly affect ICU length of stay or duration of mechanical ventilation. Combined NMES and in-bed cycle ergometry did not significantly improve the MRC sum score. Adverse events were generally mild and transient, and serious adverse events were rare; however, adverse-event definitions and monitoring methods varied across studies.
Outcome-specific certainty ranged from low to very low. Because most outcomes, including the MRC sum score and 6-minute walking distance, were rated as very low certainty, the overall certainty of evidence for KQ 3 was rated as very low. The observed benefits for hospital length of stay and 6-minute walking distance, together with the rarity of serious adverse events, supported using these interventions as adjunctive modalities. However, the absence of consistent benefit for muscle strength, muscle mass, ICU length of stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation supported a conditional rather than strong recommendation.
Implementation considerations
The panel judged that NMES and in-bed cycle ergometry may be useful adjuncts, particularly for patients who cannot participate fully in active mobilization because of weakness, sedation, delirium, or ventilatory support. These modalities should supplement, rather than replace, conventional active, goal-directed rehabilitation once patients are able to engage. Implementation requires appropriate patient selection, staff training, monitoring, skin and electrode checks for NMES, line and tube management during cycle ergometry, and consideration of equipment availability. Details are provided in Supplementary Table S3 and Supplementary Figs. S3.1-S3.10.
Frequency of rehabilitation sessions in adult ICU patients
KQ 4. Is providing multiple rehabilitation sessions per day effective in critically ill adult patients admitted to the ICU?
Recommendation: We suggest providing rehabilitation sessions at least twice daily for medically stable critically ill adults at high risk of functional decline who can tolerate repeated sessions. (Conditional recommendation for; very low certainty of evidence)
Evidence summary and rationale
Twenty-two randomized controlled trials compared once-daily rehabilitation with two or more rehabilitation sessions per day in adult ICU patients [30,32,38,40,41,43,52,53,67,74-86]. Across most short-term clinical outcomes, multiple daily rehabilitation sessions showed no clear benefit. Duration of mechanical ventilation did not differ significantly (MD, -0.50 days; 95% CI, -1.68 to 0.68; 15 studies; low certainty). ICU length of stay showed a nonsignificant reduction (MD, -0.66 days; 95% CI, -1.94 to 0.62; 20 studies; very low certainty), and hospital length of stay did not differ significantly (MD, 0.11 days; 95% CI, -0.48 to 0.70; 17 studies; very low certainty). ICU mortality and in-hospital mortality were also unaffected.
For functional outcomes, the MRC sum score did not differ significantly at ICU discharge, hospital discharge, or 3 months after ICU discharge, although a small improvement was observed at 6 months (MD, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.55–2.38; 2 studies; very low certainty). Health-related quality of life did not differ significantly at hospital discharge, but modest improvements were observed at 6 months (MD, 2.74; 95% CI, 0.99–4.48; 6 studies; very low certainty) and 12 months (MD, 3.34; 95% CI, 1.05–5.63; 4 studies; very low certainty). The clinical importance of these long-term differences remains uncertain. Adverse events, including respiratory, cardiovascular, catheter-related, and patient-related events, were not significantly increased, and no serious adverse events were reported.
Implementation considerations
Given the very low certainty of evidence, uncertain short-term benefit, and greater resource requirements, multiple daily sessions should not be implemented routinely for all ICU patients. They may be considered selectively for medically stable adults at high risk of functional decline who can tolerate repeated sessions, such as patients with severe weakness, prolonged mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, or insufficient response to a single daily session. Practical alternatives include shorter divided sessions, longer or more intense single sessions, nurse-led mobilization, and safe self-directed exercise when appropriate. Table 3 provides examples of patient groups in whom multiple daily sessions may be considered. Details are provided in Supplementary Table S4 and Supplementary Figs. S4.1-S4.7.
Inspiratory muscle training (IMT) in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients
KQ 5. Is IMT beneficial for mechanically ventilated critically ill patients?
Recommendation: We suggest applying IMT in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. (Conditional recommendation for; moderate certainty of evidence)
Evidence summary and rationale
Fourteen randomized controlled trials compared IMT with usual care alone in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients [87-100]. IMT significantly improved maximal inspiratory pressure compared with control (MD, 6.86 cm H₂O; 95% CI, 5.84–7.88; 13 studies; moderate certainty), although the magnitude of improvement did not exceed the predefined minimally clinically important difference. IMT also improved several respiratory and weaning-related outcomes. The rapid shallow breathing index decreased significantly (MD, -6.06; 95% CI, -10.55 to -1.57; 5 studies; low certainty), duration of mechanical ventilation was shorter (MD, -1.92 days; 95% CI, -2.79 to-1.05; 7 studies; moderate certainty), and weaning duration was reduced (MD, -0.73 days; 95% CI, -1.15 to -0.30; 6 studies; low certainty). ICU length of stay was also shorter in the IMT group (MD, -4.46 days; 95% CI, -5.35 to -3.56; 3 studies; low certainty). IMT increased the weaning success rate (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.05–1.66; 5 studies; low certainty), whereas in-hospital mortality and reintubation rate did not differ significantly. Adverse events were not meta-analyzed because definitions and reporting methods varied across studies. No serious IMT-related adverse events were reported, although one trial described interrupted sessions because of paradoxical breathing, tachypnea, desaturation, hemodynamic instability, or supraventricular tachycardia.
Implementation considerations
The panel judged that IMT may be considered for clinically stable mechanically ventilated patients with respiratory muscle weakness, delayed weaning, or difficulty achieving ventilator liberation. IMT should be delivered by trained clinicians who can assess alertness, cooperation, airway safety, secretion burden, oxygenation, hemodynamic stability, and contraindications such as suspected pharyngeal injury or markedly increased intracranial pressure. Details are provided in Supplementary Table S5 and Supplementary Figs. S5.1-S5.4.
Bedside swallowing screening after extubation in critically ill patients
KQ 6. Is bedside swallowing screening alone sufficient to diagnose dysphagia after extubation in critically ill patients?
Recommendation: We suggest not diagnosing dysphagia based solely on bedside swallowing screening after extubation in critically ill patients. (Conditional recommendation against; very low certainty of evidence)
Evidence summary and rationale
Seven diagnostic accuracy studies evaluated bedside swallowing screening after extubation in critically ill patients [101-107]. All included studies used fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing as the reference standard. Two studies evaluated the Gugging Swallowing Screen for the intensive care unit (GUSS-ICU), whereas the remaining studies used other bedside screening approaches, including bedside swallowing evaluation, cough reflex testing, modified volume-viscosity swallow testing, and other clinical screening methods. In most studies, the reference standard was performed within 24 hours after the screening test.
In the pooled analysis, bedside swallowing screening had limited and variable diagnostic accuracy, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.60–0.89) and pooled specificity of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.44–0.88). Diagnostic performance varied substantially across studies according to the screening method, patient population, assessment timing, and post-extubation clinical status. In a subgroup analysis of two studies using GUSS-ICU, diagnostic performance appeared better, with a sensitivity of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.76–0.93) and specificity of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.65–0.99) [102,103]. However, this subgroup included few studies, and the certainty of evidence was rated as very low because of risk-of-bias concerns, indirectness, inconsistency, and imprecision.
Implementation considerations
Bedside swallowing screening may be useful as an initial safety check or triage tool after extubation, but it should not be used as the sole basis for confirming or excluding dysphagia. Patients with positive screening results, high aspiration risk, weak cough, altered mental status, neurological disease, persistent respiratory instability, or unclear findings should undergo further clinical evaluation and, when appropriate, instrumental assessment such as fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing or a videofluoroscopic swallowing study. Details are provided in Supplementary Table S6 and Supplementary Figs. S6.1 and S6.2, and S6.4.
Swallowing rehabilitation for post-extubation dysphagia in critically ill patients
KQ 7. Does swallowing rehabilitation improve clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with dysphagia after extubation compared with no swallowing rehabilitation?
Recommendation: We recommend providing swallowing rehabilitation for critically ill patients with dysphagia after extubation. (Strong recommendation for; moderate certainty of evidence)
Evidence summary and rationale
Four studies evaluated swallowing rehabilitation in critically ill patients after endotracheal extubation: three randomized controlled trials and one nonrandomized controlled study [108-111]. The included studies enrolled patients who had been successfully extubated after prolonged endotracheal intubation, most commonly for at least 48 hours, and assessed outcomes within 7–30 days after extubation.
In the three randomized controlled trials, swallowing rehabilitation significantly shortened the time to resumption of oral feeding compared with no swallowing rehabilitation (MD, -0.85 days; 95% CI, -1.37 to -0.33; 198 participants; 3 studies; moderate certainty). One randomized controlled trial reported improved salivary flow 7 days after extubation (MD, 7.56 mm; 95% CI, 5.67–9.45; 90 participants; low certainty). Another randomized controlled trial showed a lower incidence of pneumonia in the swallowing rehabilitation group than in the control group (odds ratio [OR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10–0.56; 117 participants; moderate certainty). The nonrandomized study also suggested earlier resumption of oral feeding with swallowing and oral care intervention (hazard ratio, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.08–2.91), although baseline imbalance and study-design limitations should be considered. Evidence was downgraded mainly for imprecision and, for salivary flow, risk-of-bias concerns and reliance on a single study.
Implementation considerations
The panel issued a strong recommendation because swallowing rehabilitation improved clinically important outcomes, may reduce aspiration-related complications, is generally acceptable to patients and clinicians, and requires relatively limited resources when speech-language pathology or trained rehabilitation personnel are available. Rehabilitation should be individualized according to swallowing status, airway protection, cough strength, mental status, respiratory stability, secretion burden, aspiration risk, and nutritional route. Instrumental assessment should be considered when aspiration risk is high or bedside findings are unclear. Details are provided in Supplementary Table S7 and Supplementary Figs. S7.1-S7.3.
Cognitive rehabilitation in adult ICU patients
KQ 8. Does cognitive rehabilitation improve cognitive and delirium-related outcomes in critically ill adult patients admitted to the ICU?
Recommendation: We suggest considering cognitive rehabilitation for critically ill patients admitted to the ICU. (Conditional recommendation for; low certainty of evidence)
Evidence summary and rationale
Six randomized controlled trials evaluated cognitive rehabilitation or cognitive training interventions in adult ICU patients [112-117], and five were included in the meta-analysis [112-116]. Interventions included cognitive rehabilitation alone, occupational therapist–guided cognitive intervention, physical-cognitive therapy, and combined cognitive and physical rehabilitation. Cognitive rehabilitation was associated with a small but statistically significant improvement in overall cognitive function 3 months after ICU discharge, as assessed using tools such as the Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MD, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.32–1.89; 2 studies; low certainty) [113,115]. However, this improvement was smaller than the predefined minimally clinically important difference. Executive function, health-related quality of life, delirium occurrence, and delirium duration did not differ significantly between groups. No serious adverse events directly attributable to cognitive rehabilitation were reported. Evidence was downgraded mainly because the evidence base was small, risk-of-bias concerns were present, interventions and outcome measures were heterogeneous, and estimates were imprecise.
Implementation considerations
The panel judged that cognitive rehabilitation may be considered selectively for ICU patients at risk of cognitive impairment, particularly when patients are alert, cooperative, recovering from delirium, and able to communicate or engage in structured tasks. Because the observed benefits were small and evidence for delirium, executive function, and quality of life was inconclusive, routine use in all ICU patients is not supported. Interventions should be tailored to consciousness level, delirium status, fatigue, communication ability, sensory impairment, and rehabilitation goals. Details are provided in Supplementary Table S8 and Supplementary Figs. S8.1-S8.5.
Occupational therapy in adult ICU patients
KQ 9. In adult patients admitted to the ICU, does occupational therapy improve cognitive and physical recovery compared with usual care or no occupational therapy?
Recommendation: We suggest providing occupational therapy as part of multidisciplinary rehabilitation for critically ill patients admitted to the ICU. (Conditional recommendation for; moderate certainty of evidence)
Evidence summary and rationale
Eight studies evaluated occupational therapy, or rehabilitation programs that included occupational therapy, in adult ICU patients: six randomized controlled trials and two nonrandomized before-and-after studies [32,34,112,114,118-121]. Occupational therapy was associated with significant improvements in several patient-centered outcomes at hospital discharge. Activities of daily living improved modestly in the intervention group (SMD, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.03–0.72; 2 studies; moderate certainty), although the effect size did not clearly exceed the predefined minimally clinically important difference. Physical function, assessed mainly using grip strength or functional performance measures, also improved (SMD, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.36–1.00; 2 studies; moderate certainty), and cognitive function was better in the intervention group (SMD, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.15–0.84; 2 studies; moderate certainty). Occupational therapy was associated with shorter ICU length of stay (MD, -1.32 days; 95% CI, -2.40 to -0.24; 3 studies; low certainty), but hospital length of stay and mortality did not clearly decrease. One trial suggested improved quality of life at hospital discharge, and another suggested a lower risk of cognitive impairment at 1 year; however, both findings were based on limited evidence. Adverse-event reporting was incomplete, but serious occupational therapy–related adverse events were rare.
Implementation considerations
The panel judged that occupational therapy may provide meaningful benefits when incorporated into multidisciplinary ICU rehabilitation, particularly for patients with impaired activities of daily living, cognitive dysfunction, delirium risk, weakness, or difficulty resuming self-care tasks. Interventions should be tailored to arousal level, delirium status, communication ability, upper-limb function, fatigue, hemodynamic and respiratory stability, and rehabilitation goals. Details are provided in Supplementary Table S9 and Supplementary Figs. S9.1-S9.10.
High-dose protein supplementation during ICU rehabilitation
KQ 10. Does high-dose protein supplementation during ICU rehabilitation improve outcomes in critically ill patients compared with standard protein provision?
Recommendation: We suggest not routinely providing high-dose protein supplementation during ICU rehabilitation in critically ill patients at this time. (Conditional recommendation against; low certainty of evidence)
This recommendation does not discourage appropriate nutritional assessment or standard protein provision; rather, it indicates that routine high-dose supplementation beyond standard targets during ICU rehabilitation is not currently supported.
Evidence summary and rationale
Two randomized controlled trials evaluated high-dose protein supplementation in critically ill patients receiving rehabilitation [122,123]. One trial compared a high-protein target of 2.0–2.2 g/kg/day with a standard-protein target of 1.4–1.5 g/kg/day in patients receiving early rehabilitation, whereas the other compared 1.8 g/kg/day with 0.9 g/kg/day in patients undergoing ICU rehabilitation. High-dose protein supplementation did not consistently improve clinically important outcomes, including ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, or functional status; its effects on mortality remain uncertain. One trial suggested less loss of femoral muscle volume in the high-protein group, but the clinical importance of this finding remains uncertain because no minimally clinically important difference has been established. Overall, the certainty of evidence was rated as low because the evidence came from few trials, risk-of-bias concerns were present, protein targets varied, and estimates were imprecise.
Implementation considerations
Adverse events were not directly evaluated in the two included trials [122,123]. However, indirect evidence from trials and meta-analyses comparing higher versus lower protein delivery in critically ill patients suggests potential concerns, including increased urea levels and possible harm in patients with acute kidney injury [124,125]. Therefore, protein provision should be tailored to illness phase, nutritional risk, renal function, metabolic tolerance, feeding route, and rehabilitation goals. High-dose supplementation should be used cautiously, particularly in patients with renal dysfunction or poor metabolic tolerance. Details are provided in Supplementary Table S10 and Supplementary Fig. S10.
Developmentally focused physical rehabilitation in neonates admitted to the NICU
KQ 11. Does developmentally focused physical rehabilitation improve clinical and developmental outcomes in neonates admitted to the NICU?
Recommendation: We suggest providing developmentally focused physical rehabilitation for neonates admitted to the NICU when clinically appropriate. (Conditional recommendation for; moderate certainty of evidence)
Evidence summary and rationale
Sixty-two randomized controlled trials evaluated developmentally focused physical rehabilitation in the NICU [126-187], and 59 trials were included in the meta-analysis. Interventions included kangaroo mother care, skin-to-skin contact, individualized developmental care, tactile–kinesthetic or multisensory stimulation, therapist-led rehabilitation, and caregiver-assisted interventions. Compared with standard NICU care, developmentally focused physical rehabilitation shortened hospital or NICU length of stay (MD, -5.89 days; 95% CI, -6.20 to -5.58; 19 studies; 2,166 participants; moderate certainty), exceeding the predefined minimally clinically important difference of 3 days. Duration of mechanical ventilation did not differ significantly between groups (MD, -1.23 days; 95% CI, -3.51 to 1.05; 3 studies; low certainty).
Developmentally focused physical rehabilitation was also associated with lower caregiver stress (SMD, -0.87; 95% CI, -1.05 to -0.68; 8 studies; moderate certainty). Developmental and growth outcomes generally favored the intervention. Cognitive development improved significantly (SMD, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.40–0.75; 13 studies; low certainty), and motor development showed a small improvement (SMD, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06–0.35; 16 studies; very low certainty). Growth outcomes, including body weight, height, and head circumference, also favored the intervention. However, because neonatal growth is influenced by multiple factors and the included studies were clinically heterogeneous, the observed effect sizes did not exceed the predefined minimally clinically important differences, limiting assessment of clinical significance. Safety outcomes did not suggest increased physiological instability; respiratory rate and apnea incidence favored the intervention group, suggesting possible benefits for cardiorespiratory stability, whereas heart rate did not differ significantly. However, most studies excluded neonates with marked hemodynamic instability, increasing ventilatory requirements, major congenital anomalies, uncontrolled infection, or other high-risk conditions. Therefore, these safety findings should be applied primarily to clinically stable neonates.
Implementation considerations
The panel judged that benefits probably outweigh harms when developmentally focused rehabilitation is applied to clinically appropriate neonates in the NICU. Implementation should include standardized training, institution-specific standard operating protocols with clear eligibility and safety-monitoring criteria, and multidisciplinary collaboration among rehabilitation physicians, neonatologists, NICU nurses, therapists, and caregivers. When therapist-led care is limited, structured caregiver education may be a practical complement. Details are provided in Supplementary Table S11 and Supplementary Figs. S11.1-S11.12.
Feeding and swallowing rehabilitation in neonates admitted to the NICU
KQ 12. Does feeding and swallowing rehabilitation improve clinical outcomes in neonates admitted to the NICU compared with no feeding or swallowing rehabilitation?
Recommendation: We suggest providing feeding and swallowing rehabilitation for neonates admitted to the NICU who have feeding or swallowing difficulties or are expected to have delayed feeding or swallowing development. (Conditional recommendation for; moderate certainty of evidence)
This recommendation should be applied only when neonates are medically stable and feeding or swallowing intervention is judged to be safe.
Evidence summary and rationale
Nineteen randomized controlled trials evaluated feeding and swallowing rehabilitation in neonates admitted to the NICU [188-206]. Interventions included oral motor stimulation, non-nutritive sucking, pre-feeding oral stimulation, premature infant oral motor intervention, pacifier-based interventions, and multistimulation approaches. Compared with standard NICU feeding care, feeding and swallowing rehabilitation significantly shortened hospital or NICU length of stay (MD, -4.39 days; 95% CI, -4.93 to -3.85; 14 studies; moderate certainty) and time to independent oral feeding (MD, -4.36 days; 95% CI, -4.66 to -4.07; 12 studies; moderate certainty). Both effects exceeded the predefined minimally clinically important differences.
Feeding and swallowing rehabilitation also improved feeding performance, including overall intake (SMD, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.51–1.22; 2 studies; moderate certainty) and rate of transfer (MD, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25–0.71; 3 studies; low certainty). Body weight at discharge did not differ significantly between groups. The lower body weight observed at the time of independent oral feeding was interpreted as reflecting earlier achievement of oral feeding rather than impaired growth. Available safety outcomes suggested no increased risk: desaturation, bradycardia, and feeding intolerance did not differ significantly, whereas gastrointestinal motility disturbance was less frequent in the intervention group. However, most studies excluded neonates with marked hemodynamic instability, increasing ventilatory requirements, major congenital anomalies, or other high-risk conditions. Therefore, these safety findings should be applied primarily to clinically stable neonates. Evidence was downgraded mainly for risk of bias, imprecision, and heterogeneity in intervention protocols and outcome definitions.
Implementation considerations
Feeding and swallowing rehabilitation should be tailored to gestational or corrected age, physiological stability, respiratory support, oral readiness, sucking–swallowing–breathing coordination, aspiration risk, fatigue, stress cues, and feeding tolerance. Trained clinicians should deliver these interventions in collaboration with neonatologists, NICU nurses, therapists, and caregivers. Details are provided in Supplementary Table S12 and Supplementary Figs. S12.1-S12.6.
Early physical rehabilitation in pediatric ICU patients
KQ 13. In critically ill pediatric ICU patients, does early physical rehabilitation improve clinical outcomes compared with usual care?
Recommendation: We suggest considering early physical rehabilitation selectively for critically ill pediatric ICU patients who meet predefined safety criteria, guided by clinical judgment and patient-specific characteristics. (Conditional recommendation for; low certainty of evidence)
Evidence summary and rationale
Six studies evaluated early physical rehabilitation in pediatric ICU patients: one randomized controlled trial and five nonrandomized studies [207-212]. Interventions included early mobilization, out-of-bed activity, protocolized rehabilitation, and multidisciplinary rehabilitation programs. Comparator care consisted of usual pediatric ICU care, including basic passive range-of-motion exercise when applicable.
In the randomized trial, early physical rehabilitation did not reduce pediatric ICU length of stay (MD, 1.50 days; 95% CI, -4.07 to 7.07; 1 study; low certainty), hospital length of stay (MD, 0.00 days; 95% CI, -6.73 to 6.73; 1 study; low certainty), or functional score (MD, -1.00; 95% CI, -2.11 to 0.11; 1 study; low certainty). Functional outcomes favored early rehabilitation directionally, but the estimate was imprecise and did not reach statistical significance. In the nonrandomized studies, pooled effects on functional outcomes were small and uncertain, and duration of mechanical ventilation did not differ significantly (MD, 0.45 days; 95% CI, -0.23 to 1.12; very low certainty). Risk of bias was a major limitation because the studies had small samples, limited blinding, loss to follow-up, limitations in comparator selection, and potential residual confounding.
Implementation considerations
The panel judged that early physical rehabilitation should be considered for selected pediatric ICU patients rather than applied routinely to all such patients. Patient selection should account for age, developmental stage, diagnosis, baseline function, hemodynamic and respiratory stability, sedation and delirium status, neuromuscular weakness, device burden, ability to participate, and family involvement. Programs should use predefined safety criteria, stepwise progression, close monitoring, and multidisciplinary coordination. Details of the evidence profile and forest plots are provided in Supplementary Table S13 and Supplementary Figs. S13.1-S13.5.
Early swallowing evaluation and intervention in pediatric ICU patients
KQ 14. In pediatric ICU patients with suspected dysphagia, does early swallowing evaluation and intervention improve clinical outcomes compared with usual care without swallowing rehabilitation?
Recommendation: We suggest providing early swallowing evaluation and intervention for pediatric ICU patients when dysphagia is suspected. (Conditional recommendation for; very low certainty of evidence)
Evidence summary and rationale
Two nonrandomized studies evaluated early swallowing evaluation and intervention in pediatric ICU patients with suspected dysphagia [213,214]. One retrospective observational study enrolled children with oral-to-esophageal injury after chemical or button battery ingestion, and one quasi-experimental prospective study enrolled children with suspected post-extubation dysphagia. Pediatric ICU length of stay did not differ between groups (MD, -0.50 days; 95% CI, -3.95 to 2.95; 1 study; very low certainty). Hospital length of stay was shorter in the intervention group (MD, -5.00 days; 95% CI, -6.71 to -3.29; 1 study; very low certainty). Feeding status at discharge favored early swallowing evaluation and intervention but did not reach statistical significance (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.84–1.55; 1 study; very low certainty). In contrast, fewer patients were discharged with limited oral intake or nothing by mouth in the intervention group (RR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.00–0.60; 1 study; very low certainty). No adverse events were directly attributed to the intervention, although safety outcomes were not systematically assessed. Overall certainty was very low because all evidence came from nonrandomized studies with serious risk of bias, small samples, indirectness, and imprecision.
Implementation considerations
Early swallowing evaluation and intervention should be considered for pediatric ICU patients with suspected dysphagia after extubation or upper aerodigestive injury. Patient selection should incorporate airway protection, respiratory stability, cough strength, mental status, secretion burden, nutritional route, aspiration risk, and access to speech-language pathologists or other trained rehabilitation clinicians. Instrumental swallowing assessment should be considered when aspiration risk is high or bedside findings are unclear. Details of the evidence profile and forest plots are provided in Supplementary Table S14 and Supplementary Figs. S14.1-S14.2.
Post-ICU follow-up care for critical illness survivors
KQ 15. Does post-ICU follow-up care improve outcomes in critical illness survivors compared with usual care?
Recommendation: We suggest post-ICU follow-up care for critical illness survivors, considering available clinical resources and individual patient circumstances. (Conditional recommendation for; low certainty of evidence)
Evidence summary and rationale
Thirteen randomized controlled trial reports, representing 12 studies, evaluated post-ICU follow-up care for survivors of critical illness [215-227]. Intervention models varied substantially and included shared-care or case-management clinics, ICU recovery or multidisciplinary follow-up programs, counseling programs, telephone- or web-based interventions, telemedicine clinics, and rehabilitation-oriented programs. Comparator care was usual care after ICU discharge. Outcomes were assessed for up to 12 months after discharge.
Across pooled analyses, post-ICU follow-up care did not produce clear improvements in psychological outcomes. Anxiety symptoms were not significantly reduced (SMD, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.20 to 0.09; 3 studies; low certainty), nor were depression symptoms (SMD, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.10; 4 studies; low certainty) or post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms (SMD, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.05; 4 studies; low certainty). The incidence of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder also did not differ significantly between groups. Cognitive function, physical function, and health-related quality of life showed no significant improvement with follow-up care. Evidence for healthcare utilization remained uncertain, with no significant differences in emergency department visits or hospital readmissions. Mortality up to 12 months was not reduced (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.75–1.11; 11 studies; low certainty). The evidence was downgraded because intervention models were heterogeneous, outcome measures varied, long-term attrition was common, risk-of-bias concerns were present, and effect estimates were imprecise.
Implementation considerations
Although pooled trial evidence did not show clear outcome improvement, the panel judged that structured post-ICU follow-up may help identify unmet needs. Follow-up care can help identify persistent physical, cognitive, psychological, nutritional, and social needs; coordinate referrals; support medication and symptom review; and guide patient-centered recovery planning. Implementation should be individualized according to local resources, survivor risk profile, persistent symptoms, functional limitations, caregiver burden, and availability of multidisciplinary follow-up services. Details of the evidence profile and forest plots are provided in Supplementary Table S15 and Supplementary Figs. S15.1-S15.6.
LIMITATIONS
These guidelines should be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, adult, pediatric, and neonatal critically ill patients are clinically heterogeneous populations. Although recommendations were developed separately for each population, presenting them in a single document may reduce bedside usability for clinicians caring for any one group. Second, the available evidence was insufficient to support separate recommendations for medical, surgical, and trauma ICU subgroups. Third, most recommendations were conditional, and more than half were supported by low- or very-low-certainty evidence. Future updates may be better organized as separate population-specific guidelines, with subgroup-specific protocols added as evidence and implementation experience accumulate.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
FUNDING INFORMATION
This research was supported by a grant from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center (PACEN), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant No. RS-2024-00397935).
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION
Conceptualization: Do JG, Na Y, Suh GY. Data curation: all authors. Formal analysis: all authors. Methodology: Do JG, Na Y, Chung CR, Yeo HJ. Project administration: Do JG, Na Y. Supervision: Suh GY, Yeo HJ. Funding acquisition: Suh GY. Writing – original draft: Do JG, Yeo HJ, Chung CR, Na Y. Writing – review and editing: all authors. All authors read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Summary of recommendations for rehabilitation in critically ill patients
KQ
Recommendation
Strength
Certainty of evidence
KQ 1
We suggest providing structured early rehabilitation soon after ICU admission in critically ill patients, provided that hemodynamic instability or other major contraindications are absent.
Conditional for
Moderate
KQ 2
We recommend that institutions establish and consistently apply predefined criteria for withholding or stopping physical rehabilitation in critically ill patients.
Strong for
Very low
KQ 3
We suggest using NMES or in-bed cycle ergometry as adjunctive rehabilitation modalities in critically ill patients admitted to the ICU.
Conditional for
Very low
KQ 4
We suggest providing rehabilitation sessions at least twice daily for medically stable critically ill adults at high risk of functional decline who can tolerate repeated sessions.
Conditional for
Very low
KQ 5
We suggest applying IMT in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients.
Conditional for
Moderate
KQ 6
We suggest not diagnosing dysphagia based solely on bedside swallowing screening after extubation in critically ill patients.
Conditional against
Very low
KQ 7
We recommend providing swallowing rehabilitation for critically ill patients with dysphagia after extubation.
Strong for
Moderate
KQ 8
We suggest considering cognitive rehabilitation for critically ill patients admitted to the ICU.
Conditional for
Low
KQ 9
We suggest providing occupational therapy as part of multidisciplinary rehabilitation for critically ill patients admitted to the ICU.
Conditional for
Moderate
KQ 10
We suggest not routinely providing high-dose protein supplementation during ICU rehabilitation in critically ill patients at this time.
Conditional against
Low
KQ 11
We suggest providing developmentally focused physical rehabilitation for neonates admitted to the NICU when clinically appropriate.
Conditional for
Moderate
KQ 12
We suggest providing feeding and swallowing rehabilitation for neonates admitted to the NICU who have feeding or swallowing difficulties or are expected to have delayed feeding or swallowing development.
Conditional for
Moderate
KQ 13
We suggest considering early physical rehabilitation selectively for critically ill pediatric ICU patients who meet predefined safety criteria, guided by clinical judgment and patient-specific characteristics.
Conditional for
Low
KQ 14
We suggest providing early swallowing evaluation and intervention for pediatric ICU patients when dysphagia is suspected.
Conditional for
Very low
KQ 15
We suggest post-ICU follow-up care for critical illness survivors, considering available clinical resources and individual patient circumstances.
Conditional for
Low
Strength of recommendations and certainty of evidence were assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Conditional recommendations indicate that different choices may be appropriate depending on patient characteristics, clinical context, patient or family preferences, and resource availability. Strong recommendations may be issued despite low or very low certainty of evidence when patient safety considerations predominate.
KQ, key clinical question; ICU, intensive care unit; NMES, neuromuscular electrical stimulation; IMT, inspiratory muscle training; NICU, neonatal intensive care unit.
Table 2.
Suggested examples of criteria for withholding or stopping physical rehabilitation in critically ill patients
Domain
Suggested criteria (example)
Respiratory
PEEP >10 cm H₂O; FiO₂ >0.6; SpO₂ <90% or a sustained drop of ≥20% from baseline; respiratory rate <5 or >35 breaths/min; increasing oxygen or ventilatory support requirement
Hemodynamic
Systolic blood pressure <90 or >200 mm Hg; mean arterial pressure <65 or >110 mm Hg; heart rate <40 or >130 beats/min or a >20% change from baseline; new-onset or uncontrolled arrhythmia; need for vasopressor dose escalation
Neurological
Decreased level of consciousness; agitation or delirium preventing safe participation; new focal neurological deficit
Patient tolerance
Severe fatigue, dizziness, new chest pain or dyspnea, intolerable pain, or patient request to stop
Device-related
Risk of dislodgement or accidental removal of endotracheal tube, tracheostomy, vascular catheter, drainage tube, or other critical devices
Others
Active bleeding; inability to cooperate with the rehabilitation program; any other condition judged by the treating team to pose unacceptable risk
These criteria are provided as illustrative examples and should be adapted according to institutional protocols, available monitoring, rehabilitation intensity, and individual patient conditions. Suggested numeric thresholds are not intended as mandatory cutoffs and should be interpreted in conjunction with overall clinical judgment. Clinicians may choose to withhold, modify, continue, pause, or stop rehabilitation depending on the overall clinical context.
Examples of patient groups in whom multiple daily rehabilitation sessions may be conditionally considered
Category
Example
Medically stable patients
Hemodynamically stable patients; FiO₂ <0.6; receiving low-dose and non-escalating vasopressors
High risk of functional decline
Older age; mechanical ventilation; ECMO support; after major surgery, including organ transplantation
Able to participate in rehabilitation
Able to follow simple commands; no uncontrolled agitation or delirium preventing safe participation; analgesia and sedation appropriately controlled
Patients insufficiently responsive to a single daily session
Severe weakness allowing only short exercise duration; patients who may benefit from splitting sessions because of fatigue
Patients with rapid recovery between sessions
Patients who tolerated previous sessions well and recovered quickly enough to permit an additional session
These examples are provided to support clinical decision-making and should not be interpreted as mandatory criteria. Application should be individualized based on overall clinical judgment, patient tolerance, rehabilitation goals, safety criteria, and institutional resources.
FiO₂, fraction of inspired oxygen; ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
REFERENCES
1. Oh TK, Kim HG, Song IA. Epidemiologic study of intensive care unit admission in South Korea: a nationwide population-based cohort study from 2010 to 2019. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;20:81.
4. Schwitzer E, Jensen KS, Brinkman L, DeFrancia L, VanVleet J, Baqi E, et al. Survival ≠ recovery: a narrative review of post-intensive care syndrome. CHEST Crit Care 2023;1:100003.
5. Kang J, Hong J, Jeong JH. Post-intensive care syndrome in non-COVID-19 ICU survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic in South Korea: a multicenter prospective cohort study. J Clin Med 2022;11:6653.
6. Nakanishi N. Intensive care unit-acquired muscle atrophy and weakness in critical illness: a review of long-term recovery strategies. Acute Crit Care 2025;40:361-72.
8. Wang YT, Lang JK, Haines KJ, Skinner EH, Haines TP. Physical rehabilitation in the ICU: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2022;50:375-88.
9. Jang JH, Choi E, Son E, Yoon SH, Seol HY, Lee SE, et al. Rehabilitation during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: bridging the gap between life support and functional recovery. Acute Crit Care 2026;41:12-32.
11. Unoki T, Hayashida K, Kawai Y, Taito S, Ando M, Iida Y, et al. Japanese clinical practice guidelines for rehabilitation in critically ill patients 2023 (J-ReCIP 2023). J Intensive Care 2023;11:47.
12. Renner C, Jeitziner MM, Albert M, Brinkmann S, Diserens K, Dzialowski I, et al. Guideline on multimodal rehabilitation for patients with post-intensive care syndrome. Crit Care 2023;27:301.
13. Hodgson CL, Broadley T, Paton M, Higgins AM, Anderson S, Brennan S, et al. Australian clinical practice guideline for physical rehabilitation and mobilisation in adult intensive care units. Aust Crit Care 2025;38:101235.
15. Lewis K, Balas MC, Stollings JL, McNett M, Girard TD, Chanques G, et al. A focused update to the clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of pain, anxiety, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adult patients in the ICU. Crit Care Med 2025;53:e711-27.
16. Gosselink R, Bott J, Johnson M, Dean E, Nava S, Norrenberg M, et al. Physiotherapy for adult patients with critical illness: recommendations of the European Respiratory Society and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine Task Force on Physiotherapy for Critically Ill Patients. Intensive Care Med 2008;34:1188-99.
17. Schaller SJ, Scheffenbichler FT, Bein T, Blobner M, Grunow JJ, Hamsen U, et al. Guideline on positioning and early mobilisation in the critically ill by an expert panel. Intensive Care Med 2024;50:1211-27.
19. Park YH, Ko RE, Kang D, Park J, Jeon K, Yang JH, et al. Relationship between use of rehabilitation resources and ICU readmission and ER visits in ICU survivors: the Korean ICU National Data Study 2008-2015. J Korean Med Sci 2020;35:e101.
20. Aquim EE, Bernardo WM, Buzzini RF, Azeredo NS, Cunha LS, Damasceno MC, et al. Brazilian guidelines for early mobilization in intensive care unit. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva 2019;31:434-43.
21. Ramsey S, Shehatta AL, Ramanathan K, Shekar K, Brodie D, Diaz R, et al. Extracorporeal Life Support Organization 2024 guideline for early rehabilitation or mobilization of adult patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. ASAIO J 2025;71:187-99.
22. Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Chandler J, Welch VA, Higgins JP, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;10:ED000142.
23. Schünemann HJ, Wiercioch W, Brozek J, Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I, Mustafa RA, Manja V, et al. GRADE evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks for adoption, adaptation, and de novo development of trustworthy recommendations: GRADE-ADOLOPMENT. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;81:101-10.
24. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097.
25. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898.
27. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529-36.
28. Matsuoka A, Yoshihiro S, Shida H, Aikawa G, Fujinami Y, Kawamura Y, et al. Effects of mobilization within 72 h of ICU admission in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Med 2023;12:5888.
29. Suzuki G, Kanayama H, Arai Y, Iwanami Y, Kobori T, Masuyama Y, et al. Early mobilization using a mobile patient lift in the ICU: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med 2024;52:920-9.
30. Eggmann S, Verra ML, Luder G, Takala J, Jakob SM. Effects of early, combined endurance and resistance training in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a randomised controlled trial. PLoS One 2018;13:e0207428.
31. Schujmann DS, Teixeira Gomes T, Lunardi AC, Zoccoler Lamano M, Fragoso A, Pimentel M, et al. Impact of a progressive mobility program on the functional status, respiratory, and muscular systems of ICU patients: a randomized and controlled trial. Crit Care Med 2020;48:491-7.
32. Patel BK, Wolfe KS, Patel SB, Dugan KC, Esbrook CL, Pawlik AJ, et al. Effect of early mobilisation on long-term cognitive impairment in critical illness in the USA: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med 2023;11:563-72.
33. Soto S, Adasme R, Vivanco P, Figueroa P. Efficacy of the "Start to move" protocol on functionality, ICU-acquired weakness and delirium: a randomized clinical trial. Med Intensiva (Engl Ed) 2024;48:211-9.
35. TEAM Study Investigators and the ANZICS Clinical Trials Group; Hodgson CL, Bailey M, Bellomo R, Brickell K, Broadley T, Buhr H, et al. Early active mobilization during mechanical ventilation in the ICU. N Engl J Med 2022;387:1747-58.
36. Allahbakhshian A, Khalili AF, Gholizadeh L, Esmealy L. Comparison of early mobilization protocols on postoperative cognitive dysfunction, pain, and length of hospital stay in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Appl Nurs Res 2023;73:151731.
37. Afxonidis G, Moysidis DV, Papazoglou AS, Tsagkaris C, Loudovikou A, Tagarakis G, et al. Efficacy of early and enhanced respiratory physiotherapy and mobilization after on-pump cardiac surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Healthcare (Basel) 2021;9:1735.
38. Fossat G, Baudin F, Courtes L, Bobet S, Dupont A, Bretagnol A, et al. Effect of in-bed leg cycling and electrical stimulation of the quadriceps on global muscle strength in critically ill adults: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2018;320:368-78.
39. Kho ME, Molloy AJ, Clarke FJ, Reid JC, Herridge MS, Karachi T, et al. Multicentre pilot randomised clinical trial of early in-bed cycle ergometry with ventilated patients. BMJ Open Respir Res 2019;6:e000383.
40. Maffei P, Wiramus S, Bensoussan L, Bienvenu L, Haddad E, Morange S, et al. Intensive early rehabilitation in the intensive care unit for liver transplant recipients: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2017;98:1518-25.
41. Moss M, Nordon-Craft A, Malone D, Van Pelt D, Frankel SK, Warner ML, et al. A randomized trial of an intensive physical therapy program for patients with acute respiratory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016;193:1101-10.
42. Nickels MR, Aitken LM, Barnett AG, Walsham J, King S, Gale NE, et al. Effect of in-bed cycling on acute muscle wasting in critically ill adults: a randomised clinical trial. J Crit Care 2020;59:86-93.
43. Nydahl P, McWilliams D, Weiler N, Borzikowsky C, Howroyd F, Brobeil A, et al. Mobilization in the evening to prevent delirium: a pilot randomized trial. Nurs Crit Care 2022;27:519-27.
44. Rahiminezhad E, Sadeghi M, Ahmadinejad M, Mirzadi Gohari SI, Dehghan M. A randomized controlled clinical trial of the effects of range of motion exercises and massage on muscle strength in critically ill patients. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil 2022;14:96.
45. Schaller SJ, Anstey M, Blobner M, Edrich T, Grabitz SD, Gradwohl-Matis I, et al. Early, goal-directed mobilisation in the surgical intensive care unit: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016;388:1377-88.
46. Yu L, Jiang JX, Zhang Y, Chen YZ, Shi Y. Use of in-bed cycling combined with passive joint activity in acute respiratory failure patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Ann Palliat Med 2020;9:175-81.
47. Abu-Khaber HA, Abouelela AM, Abdelkarim EM. Effect of electrical muscle stimulation on prevention of ICU acquired muscle weakness and facilitating weaning from mechanical ventilation. Alex J Med 2013;49:309-15.
48. Ahmad AM, Abusarea SA, Fouad BZ, Guirguis SA, Shafie WA. Effect of adding early bedside cycling to inpatient cardiac rehabilitation on physical function and length of stay after heart valve surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2024;105:1050-7.
49. Akar O, Günay E, Sarinc Ulasli S, Ulasli AM, Kacar E, Sariaydin M, et al. Efficacy of neuromuscular electrical stimulation in patients with COPD followed in intensive care unit. Clin Respir J 2017;11:743-50.
50. Bano A, Aftab A, Sahar W, Haider Z, Rashed MI, Shabbir HM, et al. Combined effects of continuous positive airway pressure and cycle ergometer in early rehabilitation of coronary artery bypass surgery patients. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2023;33:866-71.
51. Bao W, Yang J, Li M, Chen K, Ma Z, Bai Y, et al. Prevention of muscle atrophy in ICU patients without nerve injury by neuromuscular electrical stimulation: a randomized controlled study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2022;23:780.
54. Campos DR, Bueno TB, Anjos JS, Zoppi D, Dantas BG, Gosselink R, et al. Early neuromuscular electrical stimulation in addition to early mobilization improves functional status and decreases hospitalization days of critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 2022;50:1116-26.
55. Cebeci GC, Cebeci H, Kucuk MP, Kucuk AO, Bayrak IK, Ulger F, et al. Neuromuscular electrical stimulator as a protective treatment against intensive care unit muscle wasting in sepsis/septic shock patients. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2022;32:1300-7.
57. Dall' Acqua AM, Sachetti A, Santos LJ, Lemos FA, Bianchi T, Naue WS, et al. Use of neuromuscular electrical stimulation to preserve the thickness of abdominal and chest muscles of critically ill patients: a randomized clinical trial. J Rehabil Med 2017;49:40-8.
59. Falavigna LF, Silva MG, Freitas AL, Silva PF, Paiva Júnior MD, de Castro CM, et al. Effects of electrical muscle stimulation early in the quadriceps and tibialis anterior muscle of critically ill patients. Physiother Theory Pract 2014;30:223-8.
60. Gerovasili V, Stefanidis K, Vitzilaios K, Karatzanos E, Politis P, Koroneos A, et al. Electrical muscle stimulation preserves the muscle mass of critically ill patients: a randomized study. Crit Care 2009;13:R161.
61. Gruther W, Kainberger F, Fialka-Moser V, Paternostro-Sluga T, Quittan M, Spiss C, et al. Effects of neuromuscular electrical stimulation on muscle layer thickness of knee extensor muscles in intensive care unit patients: a pilot study. J Rehabil Med 2010;42:593-7.
62. Karatzanos E, Gerovasili V, Zervakis D, Tripodaki ES, Apostolou K, Vasileiadis I, et al. Electrical muscle stimulation: an effective form of exercise and early mobilization to preserve muscle strength in critically ill patients. Crit Care Res Pract 2012;2012:432752.
64. Koutsioumpa E, Makris D, Theochari A, Bagka D, Stathakis S, Manoulakas E, et al. Effect of transcutaneous electrical neuromuscular stimulation on myopathy in intensive care patients. Am J Crit Care 2018;27:495-503.
65. Liu Y, Gong Y, Zhang C, Meng P, Gai Y, Han X, et al. Effect of neuromuscular electrical stimulation combined with early rehabilitation therapy on mechanically ventilated patients: a prospective randomized controlled study. BMC Pulm Med 2023;23:272.
66. Maca J, Iva C, Iva F, Lucie K, Marketa K, Ivana N, et al. The effect of the addition of in-bed leg cycling using a MOTOmed device to standard rehabilitation on the length of mechanical ventilation: a randomized clinical trial. Signa Vitae 2023;19:57-64.
67. Machado AD, Pires-Neto RC, Carvalho MT, Soares JC, Cardoso DM, Albuquerque IM, et al. Effects that passive cycling exercise have on muscle strength, duration of mechanical ventilation, and length of hospital stay in critically ill patients: a randomized clinical trial. J Bras Pneumol 2017;43:134-9.
68. Mahran GS, Mehany MM, Abbas MS, Shehata AE, AbdElhafeez AS, Obiedallah AA, et al. Short-term outcomes of neuromuscular electrical stimulation in critically ill patients. Crit Care Nurs Q 2023;46:126-35.
70. Nakamura K, Kihata A, Naraba H, Kanda N, Takahashi Y, Sonoo T, et al. Efficacy of belt electrode skeletal muscle electrical stimulation on reducing the rate of muscle volume loss in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Rehabil Med 2019;51:705-11.
71. Nakanishi N, Oto J, Tsutsumi R, Yamamoto T, Ueno Y, Nakataki E, et al. Effect of electrical muscle stimulation on upper and lower limb muscles in critically ill patients: a two-center randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med 2020;48:e997-1003.
72. Othman SY, Elbiaa MA, Mansour ER, El-Menshawy AM, Elsayed SM. Effect of neuromuscular electrical stimulation and early physical activity on ICU-acquired weakness in mechanically ventilated patients: a randomized controlled trial. Nurs Crit Care 2024;29:584-96.
73. Segers J, Vanhorebeek I, Langer D, Charususin N, Wei W, Frickx B, et al. Early neuromuscular electrical stimulation reduces the loss of muscle mass in critically ill patients: a within subject randomized controlled trial. J Crit Care 2021;62:65-71.
75. Denehy L, Skinner EH, Edbrooke L, Haines K, Warrillow S, Hawthorne G, et al. Exercise rehabilitation for patients with critical illness: a randomized controlled trial with 12 months of follow-up. Crit Care 2013;17:R156.
76. Amundadottir OR, Jónasdóttir RJ, Sigvaldason K, Gunnsteinsdottir E, Haraldsdottir B, Sveinsson T, et al. Effects of intensive upright mobilisation on outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit: a randomised controlled trial with 12-months follow-up. Eur J Physiother 2021;23:68-78.
77. Lorenz M, Baum F, Kloss P, Langer N, Arsene V, Warner L, et al. Robotic-assisted in-bed mobilization in ventilated ICU patients with COVID-19: an interventional, randomized, controlled pilot study (ROBEM II study). Crit Care Med 2024;52:683-93.
78. Hickmann CE, Castanares-Zapatero D, Deldicque L, Van den Bergh P, Caty G, Robert A, et al. Impact of very early physical therapy during septic shock on skeletal muscle: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med 2018;46:1436-43.
79. McWilliams D, Jones C, Atkins G, Hodson J, Whitehouse T, Veenith T, et al. Earlier and enhanced rehabilitation of mechanically ventilated patients in critical care: a feasibility randomised controlled trial. J Crit Care 2018;44:407-12.
81. Winkelman C, Sattar A, Momotaz H, Johnson KD, Morris P, Rowbottom JR, et al. Dose of early therapeutic mobility: does frequency or intensity matter? Biol Res Nurs 2018;20:522-30.
82. Wright SE, Thomas K, Watson G, Baker C, Bryant A, Chadwick TJ, et al. Intensive versus standard physical rehabilitation therapy in the critically ill (EPICC): a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Thorax 2018;73:213-21.
83. Yosef-Brauner O, Adi N, Ben Shahar T, Yehezkel E, Carmeli E. Effect of physical therapy on muscle strength, respiratory muscles and functional parameters in patients with intensive care unit-acquired weakness. Clin Respir J 2015;9:1-6.
84. Yu T, Cai F, Jiang R. Effects of early bedside cycle exercise on gastrointestinal function in intensive care unit patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Front Med (Lausanne) 2022;9:823067.
85. Zhou W, Yu L, Fan Y, Shi B, Wang X, Chen T, et al. Effect of early mobilization combined with early nutrition on acquired weakness in critically ill patients (EMAS): a dual-center, randomized controlled trial. PLoS One 2022;17:e0268599.
86. McWilliams DJ, King EB, Nydahl P, Darbyshire JL, Gallie L, Barghouthy D, et al. Mobilisation in the evening to prevent and treat delirium (MENTAL): a mixed-methods, randomised controlled feasibility trial. EClinicalMedicine 2023;62:102101.
87. Caruso P, Denari SD, Ruiz SA, Bernal KG, Manfrin GM, Friedrich C, et al. Inspiratory muscle training is ineffective in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2005;60:479-84.
89. Cader SA, de Souza Vale RG, Zamora VE, Costa CH, Dantas EH. Extubation process in bed-ridden elderly intensive care patients receiving inspiratory muscle training: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Interv Aging 2012;7:437-43.
90. Bissett BM, Leditschke IA, Neeman T, Green M, Marzano V, Erwin K, et al. Does mechanical threshold inspiratory muscle training promote recovery and improve outcomes in patients who are ventilator-dependent in the intensive care unit? The IMPROVE randomised trial. Aust Crit Care 2023;36:613-21.
91. Condessa RL, Brauner JS, Saul AL, Baptista M, Silva AC, Vieira SR, et al. Inspiratory muscle training did not accelerate weaning from mechanical ventilation but did improve tidal volume and maximal respiratory pressures: a randomised trial. J Physiother 2013;59:101-7.
92. Elbouhy MS, AbdelHalim HA, Hashem AMA. Effect of respiratory muscles training in weaning of mechanically ventilated COPD patients. Egypt J Chest Dis Tuberc 2014;63:679-87.
94. Tonella RM, Ratti LD, Delazari LE, Junior CF, Da Silva PL, Herran AR, et al. Inspiratory muscle training in the intensive care unit: a new perspective. J Clin Med Res 2017;9:929-34.
95. Ibrahim AA, Mohamed AR. Effect of adding different physiotherapy modalities to standard chest physiotherapy for critical ill patients. Res J Pharm Biol Chem Sci 2018;9:144-52.
96. Sandoval Moreno LM, Casas Quiroga IC, Wilches Luna EC, García AF. Efficacy of respiratory muscle training in weaning of mechanical ventilation in patients with mechanical ventilation for 48 hours or more: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Med Intensiva (Engl Ed) 2019;43:79-89.
97. da Silva Guimarães B, de Souza LC, Cordeiro HF, Regis TL, Leite CA, Puga FP, et al. Inspiratory muscle training with an electronic resistive loading device improves prolonged weaning outcomes in a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med 2021;49:589-97.
98. Van Hollebeke M, Poddighe D, Clerckx B, Muller J, Hermans G, Gosselink R, et al. High-intensity inspiratory muscle training improves scalene and sternocleidomastoid muscle oxygenation parameters in patients with weaning difficulties: a randomized controlled trial. Front Physiol 2022;13:786575.
99. Martin AD, Smith BK, Davenport PD, Harman E, Gonzalez-Rothi RJ, Baz M, et al. Inspiratory muscle strength training improves weaning outcome in failure to wean patients: a randomized trial. Crit Care 2011;15:R84.
100. Kazemi M, Froutan R, Bagheri Moghadam A. Impact of inspiratory muscle training and positive expiratory pressure on lung function and extubation success of ICU patients: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Acad Emerg Med 2024;12:e59.
101. Siao SF, Tseng WH, Wang TG, Wei YC, Hsiao TY, Ku SC, et al. Predicting feeding-tube dependence in patients following endotracheal extubation: a two-item swallowing screen. BMC Pulm Med 2021;21:403.
102. Schandl A, Bergström L, Selg J, Eliasson A, Hylèn M, Silfwerbrand F, et al. Identifying dysphagia in the intensive care unit: validation of the Swedish version of the Gugging swallowing screen-intensive care unit. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2025;69:e70031.
103. Troll C, Trapl-Grundschober M, Teuschl Y, Cerrito A, Compte MG, Siegemund M, et al. A bedside swallowing screen for the identification of post-extubation dysphagia on the intensive care unit - validation of the Gugging swallowing screen (GUSS)-ICU. BMC Anesthesiol 2023;23:122.
104. Maamar A, Parent V, Prudhomme E, Guérot E, Berneau P, Frérou A, et al. Fiberoptic endoscopic validation of a clinical screening test of swallowing function in critically ill patients performed within 24 h after extubation. J Crit Care 2022;72:154119.
105. Lynch YT, Clark BJ, Macht M, White SD, Taylor H, Wimbish T, et al. The accuracy of the bedside swallowing evaluation for detecting aspiration in survivors of acute respiratory failure. J Crit Care 2017;39:143-8.
106. Kallesen M, Psirides A, Huckabee ML. Comparison of cough reflex testing with videoendoscopy in recently extubated intensive care unit patients. J Crit Care 2016;33:90-4.
107. Martínez de Lagrán Zurbano I, Laguna LB, Soria CV, Guisasola CP, Marcos-Neira P. Utility of the modified volume-viscosity swallow test for bedside screening of dysphagia in critically ill patients. Clin Nutr ESPEN 2023;53:214-23.
108. Turra GS, Schwartz IV, Almeida ST, Martinez CC, Bridi M, Barreto SS, et al. Efficacy of speech therapy in post-intubation patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia: a randomized controlled trial. Codas 2021;33:e20190246.
109. Chacko SA, Ramamoorthy L, Cherian A, Anusuya R, Lalthanthuami HT, Subramaniyan R, et al. Effectiveness of swallowing and oral care interventions on oral intake and salivary flow of patients following endotracheal extubation at a tertiary care center: a randomized controlled trial. J Caring Sci 2023;12:213-20.
110. Siao SF, Ku SC, Tseng WH, Wei YC, Chang YC, Hsiao TY, et al. Effects of a swallowing and oral-care program on resuming oral feeding and reducing pneumonia in patients following endotracheal extubation: a randomized, open-label, controlled trial. Crit Care 2023;27:283.
111. Wu CP, Xu YJ, Wang TG, Ku SC, Chan DC, Lee JJ, et al. Effects of a swallowing and oral care intervention for patients following endotracheal extubation: a pre- and post-intervention study. Crit Care 2019;23:350.
113. Brummel NE, Girard TD, Ely EW, Pandharipande PP, Morandi A, Hughes CG, et al. Feasibility and safety of early combined cognitive and physical therapy for critically ill medical and surgical patients: the Activity and Cognitive Therapy in ICU (ACT-ICU) trial. Intensive Care Med 2014;40:370-9.
114. Álvarez EA, Garrido MA, Tobar EA, Prieto SA, Vergara SO, Briceño CD, et al. Occupational therapy for delirium management in elderly patients without mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit: a pilot randomized clinical trial. J Crit Care 2017;37:85-90.
115. Dong Q, Yang Y, Tang Q, Yang M, Lan A, Xiao H, et al. Effects of early cognitive rehabilitation training on cognitive function and quality of life in critically ill patients with cognitive impairment: a randomised controlled trial. Aust Crit Care 2023;36:708-15.
116. Dai H, Liu X, Feng D, Li R, Shen H. Evidence-based nursing combined with cognitive function training can reduce the incidence of delirium in ICU patients and improve their cognitive function. Am J Transl Res 2021;13:3262-9.
117. Suwardianto H, Prasetyo A, Utami RS. Effects of physical-cognitive therapy (PCT) on criticaly ill patients in intensive care unit. Hiroshima J Med Sci 2018;67:63-9.
118. Rapolthy-Beck A, Fleming J, Turpin M, Sosnowski K, Dullaway S, White H, et al. Efficacy of early enhanced occupational therapy in an Intensive Care Unit (EFFORT-ICU): a single-site feasibility trial. Am J Occup Ther 2023;77:7706205110.
119. Carvalho AC, Moreira J, Cubelo P, Cantista P, Aguiar Branco C, Guimarães B, et al. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation in intensive care for COVID-19: randomised controlled trial. ERJ Open Res 2023;9:00350-2022.
120. Corcoran JR, Herbsman JM, Bushnik T, Van Lew S, Stolfi A, Parkin K, et al. Early rehabilitation in the medical and surgical intensive care units for patients with and without mechanical ventilation: an interprofessional performance improvement project. PM R 2017;9:113-9.
121. Needham DM, Korupolu R, Zanni JM, Pradhan P, Colantuoni E, Palmer JB, et al. Early physical medicine and rehabilitation for patients with acute respiratory failure: a quality improvement project. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:536-42.
122. de Azevedo JR, Lima HC, Frota PH, Nogueira IR, de Souza SC, Fernandes EA, et al. High-protein intake and early exercise in adult intensive care patients: a prospective, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact on functional outcomes. BMC Anesthesiol 2021;21:283.
123. Nakamura K, Nakano H, Naraba H, Mochizuki M, Takahashi Y, Sonoo T, et al. High protein versus medium protein delivery under equal total energy delivery in critical care: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Nutr 2021;40:796-803.
124. Heyland DK, Patel J, Compher C, Rice TW, Bear DE, Lee ZY, et al. The effect of higher protein dosing in critically ill patients with high nutritional risk (EFFORT Protein): an international, multicentre, pragmatic, registry-based randomised trial. Lancet 2023;401:568-76.
125. Lee ZY, Yap CSL, Hasan MS, Engkasan JP, Barakatun-Nisak MY, Day AG, et al. The effect of higher versus lower protein delivery in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Care 2021;25:260.
126. Abasalizadeh M, Kazemi F, Aghababaei S, Basiri B, Soltani F. Increasing the resilience of mothers with preterm infant: the effect of Kangaroo Mother Care. J Family Reprod Health 2024;18:60-6.
127. Abdel Mageed AS, Olama KA, Abdel Rahman SA, El-Gazzar HE. The effect of sensory stimulation on apnea of prematurity. J Taibah Univ Med Sci 2022;17:311-9.
128. Alice JJ, Senthil KS, Sosale S. Effect of tactile-kinesthetic stimulation on weight in preterm neonates in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Indian Pediatr 2020;57:1071-2.
129. Als H, Gilkerson L, Duffy FH, McAnulty GB, Buehler DM, Vandenberg K, et al. A three-center, randomized, controlled trial of individualized developmental care for very low birth weight preterm infants: medical, neurodevelopmental, parenting, and caregiving effects. J Dev Behav Pediatr 2003;24:399-408.
130. Als H, Duffy FH, McAnulty GB, Rivkin MJ, Vajapeyam S, Mulkern RV, et al. Early experience alters brain function and structure. Pediatrics 2004;113:846-57.
131. Als H, Duffy FH, McAnulty GB, Fischer CB, Kosta S, Butler SC, et al. Is the Newborn Individualized Developmental Care and Assessment Program (NIDCAP) effective for preterm infants with intrauterine growth restriction? J Perinatol 2011;31:130-6.
132. Ariagno RL, Thoman EB, Boeddiker MA, Kugener B, Constantinou JC, Mirmiran M, et al. Developmental care does not alter sleep and development of premature infants. Pediatrics 1997;100:E9.
133. Aranha VP, Chahal A, Bhardwaj AK. Short-term effects of multimodal stimulation on neuromotor behaviour and neonatal pain among hospitalized preterm infants: a feasibility, non-blinded randomized controlled trial. J Neonatal Perinatal Med 2023;16:325-37.
134. Tas Arslan F, Akkoyun S, Küçükoğlu S, Kocoglu-Tanyer D, Konak M, Soylu H, et al. Effect of kangaroo mother care on cerebral oxygenation, physiological parameters, and comfort levels in late-premature infants: a randomized controlled trial. Midwifery 2024;137:104096.
136. Buehler DM, Als H, Duffy FH, McAnulty GB, Liederman J. Effectiveness of individualized developmental care for low-risk preterm infants: behavioral and electrophysiologic evidence. Pediatrics 1995;96:923-32.
139. Chen LC, Wu YC, Hsieh WS, Hsu CH, Leng CH, Chen WJ, et al. The effect of in-hospital developmental care on neonatal morbidity, growth and development of preterm Taiwanese infants: a randomized controlled trial. Early Hum Dev 2013;89:301-6.
140. Chen WY, Wu YY, Xu MY, Tung TH. Effect of Kangaroo Mother Care on the psychological stress response and sleep quality of mothers with premature infants in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Front Pediatr 2022;10:879956.
141. Chi Luong K, Long Nguyen T, Huynh Thi DH, Carrara HP, Bergman NJ. Newly born low birthweight infants stabilise better in skin-to-skin contact than when separated from their mothers: a randomised controlled trial. Acta Paediatr 2016;105:381-90.
142. Nasiriani K, Dehghani K, Movahed ZP, Dehghani H. A randomized controlled trial of kangaroo mother care versus conventional method on vital signs and arterial oxygen saturation rate in newborns who were hospitalized in neonatal intensive care unit. J Clin Neonatol 2015;4:26.
143. Dusing SC, Tripathi T, Marcinowski EC, Thacker LR, Brown LF, Hendricks-Muñoz KD, et al. Supporting play exploration and early developmental intervention versus usual care to enhance development outcomes during the transition from the neonatal intensive care unit to home: a pilot randomized controlled trial. BMC Pediatr 2018;18:46.
144. Gabis LV, Hacham-Pilosof K, Yosef OB, Rabinovitz G, Leshem G, Shilon-Hadass A, et al. The influence of a multisensory intervention for preterm infants provided by parents, on developmental abilities and on parental stress levels. J Child Neurol 2015;30:896-903.
147. Gholami A, Karimi F, Ghasempour Z, Abolhassani M, Rabiee N. Comparison of the effect of kangaroo care and infant massage on the level of maternal anxiety and neonatal pain. J Babol Univ Med Sci 2021;23:90-7.
148. Jamil S, Rehman A, Shahman M, Irfan Saleem M, Hafeez R, Akram S, et al. Outcome of intermittent kangaroo mother care in neonatal intensive care unit. Pak J Med Health Sci 2021;15:3106-8.
149. Kanagasabai PS, Mohan D, Lewis LE, Kamath A, Rao BK. Effect of multisensory stimulation on neuromotor development in preterm infants. Indian J Pediatr 2013;80:460-4.
150. Khoramirad A, Taheri L, Eskandari N, Abedini Z. Effect of mindfulness-based neurodevelopmental care on infant outcomes in NICU. J Neonatal Nurs 2024;30:237-42.
151. Kleberg A, Westrup B, Stjernqvist K, Lagercrantz H. Indications of improved cognitive development at one year of age among infants born very prematurely who received care based on the Newborn Individualized Developmental Care and Assessment Program (NIDCAP). Early Hum Dev 2002;68:83-91.
153. Lucas BR, Bowen J, Morgan C, Novak I, Badawi N, Elliott E, et al. The Best Start Trial: a randomised controlled trial of ultra-early parent-administered physiotherapy for infants at high risk of cerebral palsy or motor delay. Early Hum Dev 2024;198:106111.
154. Maguire CM, Walther FJ, Sprij AJ, Le Cessie S, Wit JM, Veen S, et al. Effects of individualized developmental care in a randomized trial of preterm infants <32 weeks. Pediatrics 2009;124:1021-30.
155. Mahdieh S, Rahnama M, Ghaljaei F, Akbarizadeh MR, Naderifar M. The effect of multisensory stimulation on weight gain in premature infants admitted to the intensive care unit: a clinical trial study. Rom J Neurol 2021;20:96-102.
157. McAnulty G, Duffy FH, Butler S, Parad R, Ringer S, Zurakowski D, et al. Individualized developmental care for a large sample of very preterm infants: health, neurobehaviour and neurophysiology. Acta Paediatr 2009;98:1920-6.
158. McAnulty GB, Duffy FH, Butler SC, Bernstein JH, Zurakowski D, Als H, et al. Effects of the Newborn Individualized Developmental Care and Assessment Program (NIDCAP) at age 8 years: preliminary data. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 2010;49:258-70.
159. McAnulty G, Duffy FH, Kosta S, Weisenfeld NI, Warfield SK, Butler SC, et al. School age effects of the Newborn Individualized Developmental Care and Assessment Program for medically low-risk preterm infants: preliminary findings. J Clin Neonatol 2012;1:184-94.
160. McAnulty G, Duffy FH, Kosta S, Weisenfeld NI, Warfield SK, Butler SC, et al. School-age effects of the newborn individualized developmental care and assessment program for preterm infants with intrauterine growth restriction: preliminary findings. BMC Pediatr 2013;13:25.
161. McGowan EC, Caskey M, Tucker R, Vohr BR. A randomized controlled trial of a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit language intervention for parents of preterm infants and 2-year language outcomes. J Pediatr 2024;264:113740.
162. Milgrom J, Martin PR, Newnham C, Holt CJ, Anderson PJ, Hunt RW, et al. Behavioural and cognitive outcomes following an early stress-reduction intervention for very preterm and extremely preterm infants. Pediatr Res 2019;86:92-9.
163. Mirnia K, Bostanabad MA, Asadollahi M, Razzaghi MH. Paternal skin-to-skin care and its effect on cortisol levels of the infants. Iran J Pediatr 2017;27:e8151.
164. Mwendwa AC, Musoke RN, Wamalwa DC. Impact of partial Kangaroo Mother Care on growth rates and duration of hospital stay of low birth weight infants at the Kenyatta National Hospital, Nairobi. East Afr Med J 2012;89:53-8.
165. Obaid Ur Rehman M, Hayat S, Gul R, Irfan Waheed KA, Victor G, Khan MQ, et al. Impact of intermittent kangaroo mother care on weight gain of neonate in NICU: randomized control trial. J Pak Med Assoc 2020;70:973-7.
166. Ochandorena-Acha M, Terradas-Monllor M, López Sala L, Cazorla Sánchez ME, Fornaguera Marti M, Muñoz Pérez I, et al. Early physiotherapy intervention program for preterm infants and parents: a randomized, single-blind clinical trial. Children (Basel) 2022;9:895.
167. Ohgi S, Fukuda M, Akiyama T, Gima H. Effect of an early intervention programme on low birthweight infants with cerebral injuries. J Paediatr Child Health 2004;40:689-95.
168. Petteys AR, Adoumie D. Mindfulness-based neurodevelopmental care: impact on NICU parent stress and infant length of stay; a randomized controlled pilot study. Adv Neonatal Care 2018;18:E12-22.
169. Pineda R, Smith J, Roussin J, Wallendorf M, Kellner P, Colditz G, et al. Randomized clinical trial investigating the effect of consistent, developmentally-appropriate, and evidence-based multisensory exposures in the NICU. J Perinatol 2021;41:2449-62.
170. Piper MC, Kunos VI, Willis DM, Mazer BL, Ramsay M, Silver KM, et al. Early physical therapy effects on the high-risk infant: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics 1986;78:216-24.
171. Samra HA, Dutcher J, McGrath JM, Foster M, Klein L, Djira G, et al. Effect of skin-to-skin holding on stress in mothers of late-preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial. Adv Neonatal Care 2015;15:354-64.
172. Sezer Efe Y, Erdem E, Güneş T. The effect of daily exercise program on bone mineral density and cortisol level in preterm infants with very low birth weight: a randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr Nurs 2020;51:e6-12.
173. Sharma D, Murki S, Pratap OT. The effect of kangaroo ward care in comparison with "intermediate intensive care" on the growth velocity in preterm infant with birth weight <1100 g: randomized control trial. Eur J Pediatr 2016;175:1317-24.
174. Sharma D, Murki S, Oleti TP. Study comparing "Kangaroo Ward Care" with "Intermediate Intensive Care" for improving the growth outcome and cost effectiveness: randomized control trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2018;31:2986-93.
177. Umarani J, Ramesh S, Saldanha P. Assessment of preterm neonates’ response to tactile and kinesthetic stimulation. Int J Pharm Sci Res 2021;12:3298-305.
178. Ustad T, Fjørtoft T, Øberg GK. General movement optimality score and general movements trajectories following early parent-administrated physiotherapy in the neonatal intensive care unit. Early Hum Dev 2021;163:105488.
179. Wang Y, Dong W, Zhang L, Zhang R. The effect of kangaroo mother care on aEEG activity and neurobehavior in preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2022;35:6483-8.
180. Welch MG, Hofer MA, Stark RI, Andrews HF, Austin J, Glickstein SB, et al. Randomized controlled trial of Family Nurture Intervention in the NICU: assessments of length of stay, feasibility and safety. BMC Pediatr 2013;13:148.
181. Welch MG, Firestein MR, Austin J, Hane AA, Stark RI, Hofer MA, et al. Family Nurture Intervention in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit improves social-relatedness, attention, and neurodevelopment of preterm infants at 18 months in a randomized controlled trial. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2015;56:1202-11.
182. Westrup B, Kleberg A, von Eichwald K, Stjernqvist K, Lagercrantz H. A randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the effects of the newborn individualized developmental care and assessment program in a Swedish setting. Pediatrics 2000;105:66-72.
183. White-Traut RC, Nelson MN, Silvestri JM, Patel M, Vasan U, Han BK, et al. Developmental intervention for preterm infants diagnosed with periventricular leukomalacia. Res Nurs Health 1999;22:131-43.
184. Worku B, Kassie A. Kangaroo mother care: a randomized controlled trial on effectiveness of early kangaroo mother care for the low birthweight infants in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. J Trop Pediatr 2005;51:93-7.
185. Yu YT, Hsieh WS, Hsu CH, Lin YJ, Lin CH, Hsieh S, et al. Family-centered care improved neonatal medical and neurobehavioral outcomes in preterm infants: randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther 2017;97:1158-68.
186. Zeraati H, Nasimi F, Rezaeian A, Shahinfar J, Ghorban Zade M. Effect of multi-sensory stimulation on neuromuscular development of premature infants: a randomized clinical trial. Iran J Child Neurol 2018;12:32-9.
187. Zhu LB, Xu YH, Li JF, Hu X, Lu CY, Li RL, et al. The effect of kangaroo mother care after duodenal obstruction in neonates. Front Surg 2022;9:813052.
188. Fucile S, Gisel EG, Lau C. Effect of an oral stimulation program on sucking skill maturation of preterm infants. Dev Med Child Neurol 2005;47:158-62.
189. Lessen BS. Effect of the premature infant oral motor intervention on feeding progression and length of stay in preterm infants. Adv Neonatal Care 2011;11:129-39.
190. Zhang Y, Lyu T, Hu X, Shi P, Cao Y, Latour JM, et al. Effect of nonnutritive sucking and oral stimulation on feeding performance in preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2014;15:608-14.
191. Asadollahpour F, Yadegari F, Soleimani F, Khalesi N. The effects of non-nutritive sucking and pre-feeding oral stimulation on time to achieve independent oral feeding for preterm infants. Iran J Pediatr 2015;25:e809.
192. Younesian S, Yadegari F, Soleimani F. Impact of oral sensory motor stimulation on feeding performance, length of hospital stay, and weight gain of preterm infants in NICU. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2015;17:e13515.
193. Kaya V, Aytekin A. Effects of pacifier use on transition to full breastfeeding and sucking skills in preterm infants: a randomised controlled trial. J Clin Nurs 2017;26:2055-63.
194. Say B, Simsek GK, Canpolat FE, Oguz SS. Effects of pacifier use on transition time from gavage to breastfeeding in preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial. Breastfeed Med 2018;13:433-7.
195. Thakkar PA, Rohit HR, Ranjan Das R, Thakkar UP, Singh A. Effect of oral stimulation on feeding performance and weight gain in preterm neonates: a randomised controlled trial. Paediatr Int Child Health 2018;38:181-6.
196. Calik C, Esenay F. The clinical effect of pacifier use on orogastric tube-fed preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial. J Pak Med Assoc 2019;69:771-6.
197. Ghomi H, Yadegari F, Soleimani F, Knoll BL, Noroozi M, Mazouri A, et al. The effects of premature infant oral motor intervention (PIOMI) on oral feeding of preterm infants: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2019;120:202-9.
198. Mahmoodi N, Lessen KB, Keykha R, Jalalodini A, Ghaljaei F. The effect of oral motor intervention on oral feeding readiness and feeding progression in preterm infants. Iran J Neonatol 2019;10:58-63.
199. Li XL, Liu Y, Liu M, Yang CY, Yang QZ. Early premature infant oral motor intervention improved oral feeding and prognosis by promoting neurodevelopment. Am J Perinatol 2020;37:626-32.
200. Dur Ş, Gözen D. Nonnutritive sucking before oral feeding of preterm infants in Turkey: a randomized controlled study. J Pediatr Nurs 2021;58:e37-43.
201. Thabet AM, Sayed ZA. Effectiveness of the premature infant oral motor intervention on feeding performance, duration of hospital stay, and weight of preterm neonates in neonatal intensive care unit: results from a randomized controlled trial. Dimens Crit Care Nurs 2021;40:257-65.
202. Guler S, Cigdem Z, Lessen Knoll BS, Ortabag T, Yakut Y. Effect of the premature infant oral motor intervention on sucking capacity in preterm infants in Turkey: a randomized controlled trial. Adv Neonatal Care 2022;22:E196-206.
203. Negi D, Swain D, Som TK. Effectiveness of multistimulation approach on feeding habits of low-birth-weight babies: a randomized control trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X 2022;15:100159.
204. Aras Doğan Ş, Küçük Alemdar D, Dede C, Aytekin E. Oral motor stimulation, feeding and sucking success in preterm infants. J Nursology 2023;26:27-33.
205. Comuk Balci N, Takci S, Seren HC. Improving feeding skills and transition to breastfeeding in early preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial of oromotor intervention. Front Pediatr 2023;11:1252254.
206. Berber Çiftci H, Topbaş S, Taştekin A. Effect of nonnutritive sucking on oral feeding in neonates with perinatal asphyxia: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2024;33:406-17.
207. Fink EL, Beers SR, Houtrow AJ, Richichi R, Burns C, Doughty L, et al. Early protocolized versus usual care rehabilitation for pediatric neurocritical care patients: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2019;20:540-50.
208. Tsuboi N, Hiratsuka M, Kaneko S, Nishimura N, Nakagawa S, Kasahara M, et al. Benefits of early mobilization after pediatric liver transplantation. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2019;20:e91-7.
209. Biagioni J, Easley T, DeAlmeida ML, Vova J, Fujimoto AB, Graessle S, et al. Early mobilization in a pediatric intensive care unit and WeeFIM scores at rehabilitation: a retrospective study. J Pediatr Rehabil Med 2023;16:507-15.
210. Herbsman JM, D’Agati M, Klein D, O’Donnell S, Corcoran JR, Folks TD, et al. Early mobilization in the pediatric intensive care unit: a quality improvement initiative. Pediatr Qual Saf 2020;5:e256.
211. Choong K, Fraser DD, Cameron S, Cuello C, Debigaré S, Ewusie J, et al. Post-intensive care sequelae in pediatrics: results of an early rehabilitation implementation study. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2024;25:563-8.
212. Curry A, Brown A, Williams S, Schwartzberg S, Parkhurst L, Trone D, et al. 1055: impact of an early mobility program in the hematologic oncologic PICU setting. Crit Care Med 2021;49:527.
214. da Silva PSL, Lobrigate NL, Fonseca MCM. Postextubation dysphagia in children: the role of speech-language pathologists. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2018;19:e538-46.
215. Ali Abdelhamid Y, Phillips LK, White MG, Presneill J, Horowitz M, Deane AM, et al. Survivors of intensive care with type 2 diabetes and the effect of shared-care follow-up clinics: the SWEET-AS randomized controlled pilot study. Chest 2021;159:174-85.
216. Daly BJ, Douglas SL, Kelley CG, O'toole E, Montenegro H. Trial of a disease management program to reduce hospital readmissions of the chronically critically ill. Chest 2005;128:507-17.
217. Balakrishnan B, Hamrick L, Alam A, Thompson J. Effects of COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome intensive care unit survivor telemedicine clinic on patient readmission, pain perception, and self-assessed health scores: randomized, prospective, single-center, exploratory study. JMIR Form Res 2023;7:e43759.
218. Bloom SL, Stollings JL, Kirkpatrick O, Wang L, Byrne DW, Sevin CM, et al. Randomized clinical trial of an ICU recovery pilot program for survivors of critical illness. Crit Care Med 2019;47:1337-45.
219. Cuthbertson BH, Rattray J, Johnston M, Wildsmith JA, Wilson E, Hernendez R, et al. A pragmatic randomised, controlled trial of intensive care follow up programmes in improving longer-term outcomes from critical illness. The PRACTICAL study. BMC Health Serv Res 2007;7:116.
220. Douglas SL, Daly BJ, Kelley CG, O'Toole E, Montenegro H. Chronically critically ill patients: health-related quality of life and resource use after a disease management intervention. Am J Crit Care 2007;16:447-57.
221. Jackson JC, Ely EW, Morey MC, Anderson VM, Denne LB, Clune J, et al. Cognitive and physical rehabilitation of intensive care unit survivors: results of the RETURN randomized controlled pilot investigation. Crit Care Med 2012;40:1088-97.
222. Jensen JF, Egerod I, Bestle MH, Christensen DF, Elklit A, Hansen RL, et al. A recovery program to improve quality of life, sense of coherence and psychological health in ICU survivors: a multicenter randomized controlled trial, the RAPIT study. Intensive Care Med 2016;42:1733-43.
223. Jones C, Skirrow P, Griffiths RD, Humphris GH, Ingleby S, Eddleston J, et al. Rehabilitation after critical illness: a randomized, controlled trial. Crit Care Med 2003;31:2456-61.
224. Khan BA, Perkins AJ, Khan SH, Unverzagt FW, Lasiter S, Gao S, et al. Mobile critical care recovery program for survivors of acute respiratory failure: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 2024;7:e2353158.
225. Schmidt K, Worrack S, Von Korff M, Davydow D, Brunkhorst F, Ehlert U, et al. Effect of a primary care management intervention on mental health-related quality of life among survivors of sepsis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016;315:2703-11.
226. Cox CE, Hough CL, Carson SS, White DB, Kahn JM, Olsen MK, et al. Effects of a telephone- and web-based coping skills training program compared with an education program for survivors of critical illness and their family members. A randomized clinical trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2018;197:66-78.
227. Valsø Å, Rustøen T, Småstuen MC, Ekeberg Ø, Skogstad L, Schou-Bredal I, et al. Effect of nurse-led consultations on post-traumatic stress and sense of coherence in discharged ICU patients with clinically relevant post-traumatic stress symptoms: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med 2020;48:e1218-25.
Korean Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rehabilitation in Critically Ill Patients and Post-Intensive Care Syndrome
Graphical abstract
Graphical abstract
Korean Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rehabilitation in Critically Ill Patients and Post-Intensive Care Syndrome
KQ
Recommendation
Strength
Certainty of evidence
KQ 1
We suggest providing structured early rehabilitation soon after ICU admission in critically ill patients, provided that hemodynamic instability or other major contraindications are absent.
Conditional for
Moderate
KQ 2
We recommend that institutions establish and consistently apply predefined criteria for withholding or stopping physical rehabilitation in critically ill patients.
Strong for
Very low
KQ 3
We suggest using NMES or in-bed cycle ergometry as adjunctive rehabilitation modalities in critically ill patients admitted to the ICU.
Conditional for
Very low
KQ 4
We suggest providing rehabilitation sessions at least twice daily for medically stable critically ill adults at high risk of functional decline who can tolerate repeated sessions.
Conditional for
Very low
KQ 5
We suggest applying IMT in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients.
Conditional for
Moderate
KQ 6
We suggest not diagnosing dysphagia based solely on bedside swallowing screening after extubation in critically ill patients.
Conditional against
Very low
KQ 7
We recommend providing swallowing rehabilitation for critically ill patients with dysphagia after extubation.
Strong for
Moderate
KQ 8
We suggest considering cognitive rehabilitation for critically ill patients admitted to the ICU.
Conditional for
Low
KQ 9
We suggest providing occupational therapy as part of multidisciplinary rehabilitation for critically ill patients admitted to the ICU.
Conditional for
Moderate
KQ 10
We suggest not routinely providing high-dose protein supplementation during ICU rehabilitation in critically ill patients at this time.
Conditional against
Low
KQ 11
We suggest providing developmentally focused physical rehabilitation for neonates admitted to the NICU when clinically appropriate.
Conditional for
Moderate
KQ 12
We suggest providing feeding and swallowing rehabilitation for neonates admitted to the NICU who have feeding or swallowing difficulties or are expected to have delayed feeding or swallowing development.
Conditional for
Moderate
KQ 13
We suggest considering early physical rehabilitation selectively for critically ill pediatric ICU patients who meet predefined safety criteria, guided by clinical judgment and patient-specific characteristics.
Conditional for
Low
KQ 14
We suggest providing early swallowing evaluation and intervention for pediatric ICU patients when dysphagia is suspected.
Conditional for
Very low
KQ 15
We suggest post-ICU follow-up care for critical illness survivors, considering available clinical resources and individual patient circumstances.
Conditional for
Low
Domain
Suggested criteria (example)
Respiratory
PEEP >10 cm H₂O; FiO₂ >0.6; SpO₂ <90% or a sustained drop of ≥20% from baseline; respiratory rate <5 or >35 breaths/min; increasing oxygen or ventilatory support requirement
Hemodynamic
Systolic blood pressure <90 or >200 mm Hg; mean arterial pressure <65 or >110 mm Hg; heart rate <40 or >130 beats/min or a >20% change from baseline; new-onset or uncontrolled arrhythmia; need for vasopressor dose escalation
Neurological
Decreased level of consciousness; agitation or delirium preventing safe participation; new focal neurological deficit
Patient tolerance
Severe fatigue, dizziness, new chest pain or dyspnea, intolerable pain, or patient request to stop
Device-related
Risk of dislodgement or accidental removal of endotracheal tube, tracheostomy, vascular catheter, drainage tube, or other critical devices
Others
Active bleeding; inability to cooperate with the rehabilitation program; any other condition judged by the treating team to pose unacceptable risk
Category
Example
Medically stable patients
Hemodynamically stable patients; FiO₂ <0.6; receiving low-dose and non-escalating vasopressors
High risk of functional decline
Older age; mechanical ventilation; ECMO support; after major surgery, including organ transplantation
Able to participate in rehabilitation
Able to follow simple commands; no uncontrolled agitation or delirium preventing safe participation; analgesia and sedation appropriately controlled
Patients insufficiently responsive to a single daily session
Severe weakness allowing only short exercise duration; patients who may benefit from splitting sessions because of fatigue
Patients with rapid recovery between sessions
Patients who tolerated previous sessions well and recovered quickly enough to permit an additional session
Table 1. Summary of recommendations for rehabilitation in critically ill patients
Strength of recommendations and certainty of evidence were assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Conditional recommendations indicate that different choices may be appropriate depending on patient characteristics, clinical context, patient or family preferences, and resource availability. Strong recommendations may be issued despite low or very low certainty of evidence when patient safety considerations predominate.
KQ, key clinical question; ICU, intensive care unit; NMES, neuromuscular electrical stimulation; IMT, inspiratory muscle training; NICU, neonatal intensive care unit.
Table 2. Suggested examples of criteria for withholding or stopping physical rehabilitation in critically ill patients
These criteria are provided as illustrative examples and should be adapted according to institutional protocols, available monitoring, rehabilitation intensity, and individual patient conditions. Suggested numeric thresholds are not intended as mandatory cutoffs and should be interpreted in conjunction with overall clinical judgment. Clinicians may choose to withhold, modify, continue, pause, or stop rehabilitation depending on the overall clinical context.
Table 3. Examples of patient groups in whom multiple daily rehabilitation sessions may be conditionally considered
These examples are provided to support clinical decision-making and should not be interpreted as mandatory criteria. Application should be individualized based on overall clinical judgment, patient tolerance, rehabilitation goals, safety criteria, and institutional resources.
FiO₂, fraction of inspired oxygen; ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
, Hye Ju Yeo, MD, PhD2,3,*
