Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 May 19;20(5):e0324335. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324335

Efficacy and safety of the early implementation of a multimodal rehabilitation program in mechanically ventilated patients: A randomized clinical trial protocol

Jorge Iván Alvarado Sánchez 1,2,*,#, Laura Maria Castillo Morales 1,#, Yenny Rocio Cardenas Bolivar 1, Valentina Montañez Nariño 1, Maria Valentina Stozitzky Ríos 1, Catherine Lissell Arévalo Guerrero 3, Miguel Leonardo Pulido Bobadilla 3, Diana Marcela Melo Rojas 3, Ana Gabriela López Rubio 4, Diana Carolina Ortíz Moreno 4, Paula Andrea Barreto Garzón 3, Marisol Murillo 3, Andrés Felipe Mora-Salamanca 1
Editor: Luis Felipe Reyes5
PMCID: PMC12088510  PMID: 40388519

Abstract

Background

Intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICUAW) and post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) are significant complications among critically ill patients, leading to prolonged hospital stays, increased healthcare costs, and reduced quality of life. Early physical therapy in the ICU has shown promise in mitigating these adverse outcomes, yet randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the combined effects of physical, respiratory, occupational, and speech therapy initiated within the first 24–72 hours are lacking.

Methods

This single center, controlled clinical trial aims to establish the efficacy and safety of an early multimodal rehabilitation program (MRP) compared with a late MRP in mechanically ventilated patients admitted to the ICU. Adult patients (≥18 years) with a Barthel score ≥70 and requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours will be included. Participants will be randomly assigned to early MRP, initiated within 24 hours post-intubation, or late MRP, starting 72 hours post-intubation. The primary outcome is the duration of mechanical ventilation. Safety will be assessed by comparing the number of adverse events between groups. The MRP includes passive and active interventions from physical, speech, respiratory, and occupational therapy teams. Therapy intensity and type are adjusted according to the patient’s Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score. Patients with lower RASS scores (indicating deeper sedation) will receive primarily passive interventions (e.g., passive range-of-motion exercises), while those with higher RASS scores (indicating lighter sedation or alertness) will engage in more active therapies (e.g., active-assisted exercises and functional mobility activities). For patients with RASS ≥2, occupational therapy will focus on behavioral and environmental modulation, employing calming techniques, sensory stimuli, and cognitive tasks, with family education to support spatiotemporal orientation. This adaptive approach ensures patient safety and optimizes therapy based on the patient’s current sedation level and clinical condition.

Dissemination

The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06133504. Registered on November 11, 2023.

Introduction

Post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) is a significant complication that affects a large proportion of critically ill patients. PICS encompasses a range of physical, cognitive, and mental health impairments that persist long after discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU) [1]. These complications contribute to prolonged hospital stays, increased healthcare costs, and reduced quality of life for survivors of critical illnesses [1,2]. Since these long-term complications are significant, reducing the ICU length of stay could ameliorate their incidence. Patients requiring mechanical ventilation often-present prolonged ICU stays compared to non-mechanically ventilated patients admitted in the ICU. Therefore, mechanical ventilation is a major driver of poor outcomes and a key target for early interventions [3].

Early physical therapy in the ICU has been shown to be a crucial intervention to mitigate these adverse outcomes [48]. By initiating mobilization and physical rehabilitation soon after ICU admission, studies have demonstrated improvements in muscle strength, a reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation, and overall enhancement of functional recovery [48]. Early physical therapy reduces the deleterious effects of immobility, thus preventing the rapid onset of muscle atrophy and accelerating the weaning from mechanical support. Consequently, the implementation of early physical therapy protocols is recognized as a vital component of ICU care [48].

Despite the established benefits of early physical therapy, there is a lack of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the combined effects of physical, respiratory, occupational, and speech therapies within the first 24–72 hours after ICU admission. To our knowledge, no existing RCT has comprehensively assessed the synergistic impact of these four therapies initiated in this critical early period. Addressing this gap is essential for developing evidence-based protocols aimed at improving outcomes for ICU patients.

Methods: Participants, intervention and outcomes

The study protocol was prepared following the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) [9]. The SPIRIT 2013 checklist and the full protocol (Spanish and its English translation) and can be consulted as S1, S2 and S3 Files, respectively. A summary of the schedule of enrolment, interventions and assessments can be consulted as Fig 1.

Fig 1. SPIRIT schedule of enrolment, interventions and assessments.

Fig 1

HS: hospital stay; MRP: multimodal rehabilitation program; MS: mechanical ventilation. *Group allocation is based on the timing of interventions: Early MRP interventions start within the first 24 hours post-intubation, while Late MRP interventions begin after 72 hours. The frequency and duration of interventions are standardized across both groups: Speech therapy consists of 2 sessions of 10 minutes per day; Physical and Respiratory therapy involve 2 sessions of 30 minutes per day; and Occupational therapy includes 1 session of 30 minutes per day.

Research ethics approval

This study has been designed and will be conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration [10], the Belmont Report [11], and the Colombian legislation (Resolución No. 8430 de 1993) [12]. The Ethics Committee at the Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá approved this study on April 24, 2024 (CCEI-16320–2024). Protocols and amendments will be submitted to the Ethics Committee. Once approved, we will update the clinicaltrials.org registration (NCT06133504) and submit the amendments to this journal. Similarly, amendments will be communicated to researchers, clinical staff, and study participants.

The Ethics Committee audits the study twice a year, with progress reports submitted every three months. The interim analyses will be conducted by the Institutional Clinical Studies Office (in Spanish, Subdirección de Estudios Clínicos), which will provide a report to be submitted to the Ethics Committee. Based on the ethics committee’s analysis, the trial may be suspended or terminated, considering protocol deviations and adverse events (AE). Nonserious (AE) will be summarized and reported monthly, and the main investigator will immediately report all serious AE to the Ethics Committee within 24 hours of identifying the event.

ICU physicians, therapists, and nursing staff will be trained to obtain informed consent from eligible study participants or their legal representatives. Written informed consent will be obtained after an ICU physician or an ICU research team member has verified the inclusion and exclusion criteria and explained the study’s purpose, intervention, duration, benefits, risks, confidentiality measures, and contact information to the participants or their legal representatives. The ICU physician will also clarify that participation is voluntary and will not affect the quality of their medical care if they choose not to participate or withdraw their consent at any time during the study. No compensation will be provided to the study participants; however, patients experiencing AE or medical complications in any group will receive complete medical assistance. Written informed consent (in Spanish and English) can be found in S4 and S5 Files.

Personal data collected from study participants will be protected under confidentiality and personal data processing clauses stated in Colombian legislation (Ley No. 1581 de 2012) [13]. The collected data will be recorded and stored in REDCap, with exclusive access granted to the study researchers. The data will be anonymized to prevent identification of individuals. Third parties (data analysts, outcome assessors, and research auditors, among others) will only have access to anonymized datasets. However, the final trial dataset will be exclusively available to the ICU research team. After trial completion, the datasets and all related documentation will be stored for 20 years as required by Colombian legislation (Resolución No. 2378 de 2008) [14].

Study design and setting

A single center controlled clinical trial will be conducted with two groups of patients. The experimental group, also known as the “early multimodal rehabilitation program (MRP) arm”, will start the MRP in the first 24 hours after intubation. The control group, also known as the “late MRP” group, will start MRP 72 hours after intubation (Fig 2). Beyond the MRP starting time, clinical treatment will not vary between the groups.

Fig 2. Flow diagram of the study.

Fig 2

APACHE II: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health disease Classification System II; ARDS: acute respiratory distress syndrome; ICU: intensive care unit; MRP: multimodal rehabilitation program; SAPS II: Simplified Acute Physiology Score II; SOFA: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score; T: time point.

Objective

Our main aim is to establish the efficacy and safety of early MRP compared with late MRP in mechanically ventilated patients admitted to the ICU. The main outcome is the difference in the duration of mechanical ventilation between the two groups. Safety will be assessed by comparing the number of serious and nonserious AE between groups. Additional secondary and exploratory efficacy outcomes will be measured and compared among groups.

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria.

Adult patients (≥18 years) with a Barthel score ≥70 admitted to the ICU who required invasive mechanical ventilation through an endotracheal tube for a period longer than 24 hours will be included. A Barthel score of ≥70 ensures that participants have a reasonable level of functional independence before ICU admission, allowing for accurate assessment of the impact of the rehabilitation intervention on post-ICU recovery. Requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours targets a population with a sufficient duration of mechanical support to benefit from early rehabilitation interventions.

Exclusion criteria

  • Invasive mechanical ventilation through tracheostomy or a nasotracheal tube.

  • History of head and neck surgery at any time prior to ICU admission.

  • Patients directly admitted to the ICU due to cardiac arrest by any cause.

  • Airway burn.

  • Burns involving ≥ 50% of the body surface area.

  • Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (these patients usually require prolonged mechanical ventilation due to the underlying respiratory dysfunction [15])

  • Patients referred from another institution.

  • Demyelinating diseases or neuromuscular junction disorders at ICU admission.

  • Patients requiring neuromuscular blockade.

  • Patients with a life expectancy of ≤180 days will be excluded based on their primary diagnosis (e.g., advanced cancer, end-stage heart failure), comorbidities, recent clinical course, medical judgment by the ICU team, and functional status as assessed by the Barthel index.

  • ICU readmissions.

  • Participation in other rehabilitation clinical trials.

  • Liver or kidney transplant.

  • Patients with an active cancer diagnosis undergoing oncological treatment (chemotherapy/surgery) at the time of eligibility assessment.

Interventions

The early MRP is defined as passive and active therapeutic interventions performed by physical, speech, respiratory, and occupational therapy teams, starting within the first 24 hours after orotracheal intubation. The Late MRP comprises the same interventions, but begins 72 hours after orotracheal intubation. These interventions are part of the standard care provided to all ICU patients and are routinely performed in our institution.

Each therapeutic intervention will be standardized based on the discipline (physical, speech, respiratory, or occupational therapy), and the patient’s condition and tolerance. The specific intervention for each session will be adjusted according to the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score and functional assessments performed by the respective therapists.

RASS-Driven Protocol

The MRP interventions will be conducted following a RASS-driven protocol to optimize the daily therapeutic input and minimize downtime due to sedation or agitation. All therapy disciplines (physical, speech, respiratory, and occupational therapy) will provide interventions according to the level of sedation, with the type and intensity of therapy adapted based on the most recent RASS score prior to the commencement of treatment (Table 1).

Table 1. Description of the multimodal rehabilitation program interventions.

Therapeutic discipline
RASS score Physical Speech Respiratory Occupational
≤ -2 At this deep sedation level, patients will receive passive and passive-assisted interventions Passive mobilization, muscle recruitment, joint mobilization, and reflex inhibition will be performed. The aim is to maintain joint mobility and prevent muscle atrophy. Passive proprioceptive stimulation (e.g., craniofacial alignment, jaw and tongue mobilization) and orofacial muscle stimulation will be conducted. Suctioning of secretions, passive diaphragmatic training, and bronchial hygiene techniques will be provided to maintain pulmonary function. Multisensory stimulation (tactile, proprioceptive, vestibular, gustatory, auditory, olfactory) will be applied to maintain sensory input and prevent cognitive decline.
-1 to +1 Patients who are more alert will engage in passive-assisted and active interventions Active motor activation, bed mobility exercises, transfers, walking exercises, and electrostimulation for large muscle groups and respiratory muscles. The goal is to enhance functional mobility and strength. Active neuromuscular stimulation, hydration of the oral mucosa, and exercises targeting supra- and infrahyoid muscles will be implemented. Directed coughing, diaphragmatic exercises, incentive spirometry, and non-invasive respiratory muscle training will be applied to improve respiratory function and facilitate weaning from mechanical ventilation. Active participation in daily tasks, focusing on sensory and cognitive tasks to enhance autonomy in functional movements such as reaching, grasping, and releasing.
≥ 2 At this level, most therapies will remain the same as in RASS -1 to +1, but occupational therapy will focus on behavioral modulation Behavioral and environmental modulation will focus on calming techniques and reducing agitation through sensory stimuli and cognitive tasks, with family education for spatiotemporal orientation.
Session duration (min) 30 10 30 30
Daily frecuency (number of sessions per day) 2 2 2 1

Min: Minutes; RASS: Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale.

Oxygenation Criteria for Intervention:

  • Fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ≤ 0.6.

  • Peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≥ 90%.

  • Respiratory rate ≤ 30 breaths per minute.

  • Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) ≤ 10 cmH2O.

Monitoring

All staff involved will be trained to accurately assess the RASS score and other scales used in the study to reduce variability. Interventions will be documented consistently, and ICU monitoring or medical interventions that do not interfere with the study protocol will not be a cause for exclusion.

Participant withdrawal

Study participants will be withdrawn from the study in the following scenarios:

  • Adverse events: According to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) [16], AE will be systematically recorded and categorized as follows:

  • Grade 1: Mild; asymptomatic or mild symptoms; clinical or diagnostic observations only; intervention not indicated.

  • Grade 2: Moderate; minimal, local or noninvasive intervention indicated; limiting instrumental activities of daily living (e.g., preparing meals, shopping for groceries or clothes, using the telephone, managing money).

  • Grade 3: Severe or medically significant but not immediately life threatening; hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization indicated; disabling; limiting self-care activities of daily living (e.g., bathing, dressing and undressing, feeding self, using the toilet, taking medications, and not bedridden).

  • Grade 4: Life-threatening consequences; urgent intervention indicated.

  • Grade 5: Death related to AE.

The decision to withdraw participants will be made to prioritize patient safety and prevent potential harm from study-specific interventions. All major AE will be rapidly notified to the Ethics Committee (<24 hours), who will determine if the AE was associated to the intervention. Although minor AE will also be notified to the Ethics Committee (<one week), the principal investigator will discussed with the attending physician to determine whether the AE is directly related to the study intervention. If the intervention is associated with the AE, the participant could be withdrawn according to the AE classification, the likelihood of reoccurring and the willingness of the participant to continue in the clinical trial. Patients withdrawn due to complications will continue to receive full ICU care as part of standard treatment. For those still on mechanical ventilation at the time of withdrawal, their time on the ventilator will be recorded up to the point of withdrawal. This data will be included in the analysis as censored observations in the intention-to-treat analysis.

  • Health complications: If a participant develops a health condition de novo that might affect their participation in the study (e.g., acute myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, intracerebral hemorrhage, cardiac dysfunction requiring inotropic or vasopressor support), they will be withdrawn from the study.

  • Revocation of informed consent: Participants and their legal representatives have the right to revoke previously given consent to participate in this trial at any time. Medical attention will not have any repercussions.

  • Early discontinuation of the trial: If early evidence indicates that early MRP is significantly more or less beneficial than late MRP in invasive mechanically ventilated patients, the study will be stopped, and the best MRP strategy will be offered to all patients. Similarly, if early evidence suggests that early MRP or late MRP is harmful, the study will be reviewed by an Independent Data Monitoring and Safety Committee. Based on their recommendations, the study may be terminated to ensure patient safety.

  • Transference to another healthcare institution:

  • Data from patients transferred to another facility will be retained and if appropriate, it will be included in the intention to treat analysis. If the proportion of missing data due to the transfer is less than 20%, we will use data imputation methods to account for the missing values. This ensures that the contribution of these patients is not lost and that the sample size and statistical power are preserved. Transfers will be recorded as a separate variable, and we will explore their potential impact on the study outcomes through sensitivity analyses.

Adherence strategies

We will implement educational strategies, audits, feedback, and reminders for all ICU staff. Educational strategies will focus on training nurses, physicians, and therapists on the informed consent process, study participant eligibility, and the interventions involved. A pilot study will be conducted to identify challenges in implementing the study protocol and to ensure comprehension of the processes and study forms. Based on the pilot study findings, we may adjust the initial forms and data collection tools.

Furthermore, we will monitor adherence to the MRP intervention among therapy staff via an electronic reporting system, which will also track RASS scores, vital signs before and after the intervention, session duration, and any adverse events. The reporting system will work as follows:

  • Daily logs will be maintained by the clinical team, recording the frequency, duration, and type of interventions received by each study participant.

  • A weekly review of these logs will be conducted by a monitoring committee to ensure adherence to the intervention protocol.

  • Supervisors or study coordinators will periodically audit the therapeutic interventions to verify compliance with the study protocol.

Participants will be classified as adherent or non-adherent to the intervention according to the following criteria:

  • Missed interventions: In case, the number of sessions missed exceeds more than 30% of the scheduled sessions during the ICU stay (due to health complications, scheduling conflicts, among other reasons) the patient will be classified as non-adherent.

  • Session duration: Therapeutic sessions lasting less than 50% of the expected time (i.e., less than 15 minutes per session) are considered missing sessions. If this pattern repeats in more than 30% of scheduled sessions during the ICU, the patient will be classified as non-adherent.

  • Incorrect interventions: Interventions applied incorrectly (e.g., applying active interventions to patients having a RASS score < -2) are considered missing sessions and follow the missing session criteria to classify patients as adherent or non-adherent.

The results will be communicated to the staff, and we will provide both general and individualized feedback while also gathering their feedback on the protocol implementation. If needed, additional training on specific topics will be offered to both the clinical staff and the research team.

Additionally, study reminders will be placed in the participant’s room and the nurse station. Clinical staff will also have access to a 24-hour phone line for any trial-related questions.

Deviations from the study protocol

  • External Factors: Deviations due to unintentional or external factors, such as ICU procedures (e.g., central line insertions), surgeries, cardiac arrest during ICU stay, staffing limitations, or uncontrolled sedation practices, will not lead to participant withdrawal. These deviations will be documented as protocol deviations and addressed in sensitivity analyses to evaluate their potential impact on study outcomes

  • Minor protocol deviations (an accidental or unintentional change to, or non-compliance with the Ethics Committee approved procedures without Ethics Committee prior approval that does not increase the risk or decrease the benefit to the patient nor significantly affects the subject’s rights, safety or welfare and/or the integrity of the research data [17]) will be documented and reported to the Ethics Committee. These cases will be addressed in a sensitivity analysis to determine their potential impact on the study outcomes.

  • Major protocol deviations (an accidental or unintentional change to, or non-compliance with the Ethics Committee approved procedures without Ethics Committee prior approval that increase the risk or decrease the benefit to the patient or significantly affects the subject’s rights, safety or welfare and/or the integrity of the research data [17]) will be evaluated by the Ethics Committee, who will determine if the study can continue or must be terminated.

Documentation and Reporting: All non-adherent cases will be documented and reported. The research team will analyze minor deviations and, accordingly, general or particular feedback will be given to researchers, clinical team or study participants. Deviations caused by external factors will be explicitly categorized and incorporated into sensitivity analyses to maintain transparency and study integrity

Outcomes

We will collect the following baseline variables at the time of randomization (within the first 24 hours after intubation) to ensure comparability between groups: sociodemographic data (e.g., age, sex), clinical scores (Barthel, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] Score, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II [SAPS II], Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Disease Classification System II [APACHE II]), main diagnosis, body mass index, and ventilator parameters (tidal volume, respiratory rate, positive end-expiratory pressure, plateau pressure, airway resistance, and the ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure [PaO2 in mmHg] to fractional inspired oxygen [PaO2/FiO2 ratio]).

Ventilator parameters (e.g., tidal volume, respiratory rate, PEEP, FiO₂, plateau pressure, airway resistance, and PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio) will be recorded at baseline (within the first 24 hours after intubation) and daily thereafter, ideally before the morning physiotherapy session.

Primary outcome

Our main outcomes are the difference in the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, defined as the time (days) from orotracheal intubation to complete orothracheal extubation, between the experimental and control groups. We selected this outcome since it directly compares the efficacy of early MRP to that of late MRP for diminishing the time to extubation.

Safety outcomes

Concerning safety, we will measure the following adverse events and compare their occurrence between groups:

  • Altered blood pressure: Decrease in systolic arterial pressure >30% or mean arterial pressure >15%.

  • Cardiac arrhythmia leading to hemodynamic instability.

  • Oxygen desaturation: Oxygen saturation <80% for at least 10 minutes.

  • Gastrointestinal complications: nausea, vomiting or diarrhea.

  • Agitation: RASS > 2 requiring sedation.

  • Removal of invasive line.

  • Altered neurological status: Decrease in Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) <8.

  • Accidental extubation.

  • Healthcare-associated pneumonia.

  • Bronchoaspiration.

Secondary outcomes

We will also measure differences between the experimental and control groups regarding the following outcomes at T4 (up to day 28 after intubation in case the patient remains hospitalized or up to hospital discharge, in case the hospitalization period lasted less than 28 days):

  • Number of ventilator-free days (up to 28 days).

  • Number of days with delirium (up to 28 days).

  • Number of days with delirium in the ICU (up to 28 days).

  • Number of days with delirium in the general ward (up to 28 days).

  • Number of days under sedation (up to 28 days).

  • Number of days without sedation (up to 28 days).

  • Extubation failure.

  • Need for noninvasive mechanical ventilation.

Exploratory outcomes

We will explore the following outcomes:

  • Time from intubation to starting the MRP

  • Muscle strength 24 hours postextubation.

  • The highest level of mobility 24 hours postextubation.

  • Grip strength 24 hours postextubation.

  • Dysphagia 72 hours postextubation.

  • Dysphonia 72 hours postextubation.

  • The time from extubation to restarting oral intake.

  • Requirement of noninvasive mechanical ventilation postextubation.

  • Number of days hospitalized.

  • Number of days in the ICU.

  • Barthel score 28 days postintubation/hospital discharge.

  • Cognitive function 28 days postintubation/hospital discharge.

  • Activities of daily life assessment 28 days postintubation/hospital discharge.

  • Rapid sensory and dexterity test 28 days postintubation/hospital discharge.

  • Incidence of all-cause mortality up to 90 days postintubation.

  • Ventilator Parameters Trend: defined as daily percentage change is calculated as the difference between the parameter value (e.g., FiO₂, PEEP, tidal volume) on the current day and the previous day, divided by the previous day’s value, then multiplied by 100.

  • Ventilator Parameters Trend: The daily percentage change in ventilator parameters (e.g., FiO₂, PEEP, tidal volume) is calculated as the difference between the value on the current day and the previous day, divided by the previous day’s value, and then multiplied by 100.

  • Ventilatory Stability Days: Stability is defined as the absolute change in ventilator parameters between consecutive days being less than 10% of the value on the previous day. The total number of consecutive days meeting this condition will be counted.

  • Weaning Progression: Progression is defined as a reduction in ventilator support that meets specific thresholds, such as a decrease in FiO₂ by 10% or more, a reduction in pressure support by at least 2 cmH₂O, or an improvement in the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio by 20% or more compared to the previous day.

Participant timeline

The data will be collected at six time points: before allocation, at the beginning of mechanical ventilation weaning, during the OMAHA+ assessment, 24–72 days postextubation, at hospital discharge or on the 28th day after orotracheal intubation, and 90 days after intubation (Figs 12). The list of variables and their descriptions and categorizations can be found in S2 and S3 Files.

Mechanical ventilation weaning will start when the following pre-requisite are accomplished:

  • The indication to start mechanical ventilation has been successfully addressed.

  • Patient is hemodynamically stable, or the vasopressor/inotropic support is diminishing (in case the patient is on vasopressor/inotropic support).

  • The awakening has started (diminishing sedative medications)

  • FIO2< 40% and SpO2 > 89%

The OMAHA+ assessment is an institutional checklist used in our ICU to identify patients, currently in the weaning of mechanical ventilation support process, who can be successfully extubated. It includes the Yang and Tobin index, along with additional clinical, hemodynamic, and ventilatory parameters that reduce the risk of extubating failure and reintubation. To initiate the extubating process, a patient must meet at least 90% of the criteria on the OMAHA+ checklist. A full description of the OMAHA+ assessment can be found in S6 File.

Sample size

To estimate the sample size, we included previous parameters published by Schweickert and colleagues [18]. They reported that the mean duration of mechanical ventilation in patients receiving usual physical therapy was 6.1 (±1.4) days compared to 3.4 (±1.25) days in a group of patients receiving early therapy. Given an alpha error of 0.05 and a beta error of 0.9, we estimated the sample size according to the following formula:

n= 2 (Zα2+Zβ)2 × (SD12+ SD22)ES2

where n is the sample size, Zα2 is the critical value of the normal distribution at α/2 (2.81), Zβ is the Zβ is the Z score associated with the beta level (1.28), SD1 is the standard deviation in the group receiving usual physical therapy, and SD2 is the standard deviation in the group receiving early physical therapy [18]. The effect size (ES) was estimated as follows:

ES=|μ1μ2|SD12SD222

where μ1 is the mean duration of mechanical ventilation in the group receiving usual physical therapy, μ2 is the mean duration in the group receiving early physical therapy, and SD1 and SD2 are the same standard deviations used in the first equation. By substituting the values into the second equation, the ES equals to 2.03.

ES=|6.13.4|1.4021.2522=2.03

Therefore, the resulting equation obtained by replacing the values in the first equation is:

n= 2 (2.81+1.28)2 × (1.402+ 1.252)2.032=30.29 ~ 31 patients

We estimated 31 patients per intervention group (62 patients in total). An additional 20% (6 patients per group) were added to minimize the loss of statistical power in the case of patients withdrawing from the study or missing data (74 total study participants).

Methods: Assignment of interventions

Recruitment and allocation

In 2023, more than 600 mechanically ventilated patients were admitted to our ICU. Consequently, we anticipate recruiting approximately 15–20 patients per month, accounting for exclusion criteria and the willingness of legal representatives or patients to participate in the study.

Study participants will be randomly assigned to each group using a stratified randomization strategy to ensure balance by age (<65 and ≥65 years), sex (male and female), and comorbidities (Charlson comorbidity index <8 and ≥8) resulting in eight strata. The allocation sequence will be generated through a computer-generated random numbers system, a function provided by REDCap. Study participants will be irreversible assigned by REDCap to either the intervention group or the control group once eligibility is confirmed. The randomization process will be monitored and documented electronically within REDCap, ensuring transparency and minimizing the potential for bias. Additionally, REDCap will maintain a log of all randomization events, which can be audited if necessary.

Given the nature of our study, which involves applying an MRP, it is not feasible to blind the intervention to either the medical staff or the patients. However, to minimize bias, the assessment of the primary outcome will be performed by an independent evaluator who is blinded to the group assignments of the participants. This evaluator will be responsible for assessing the outcome without knowledge of which intervention was applied. The statistical analysis will be conducted by an independent researcher who will have access to the data but will not be involved in the outcome assessment.

Methods: Data collection, management, and analysis

Data collection and management

The data will be collected at six time points (Fig 1). The case report form (CRF) does not include any personal data, and every study participant will be given a randomized identification number to anonymize the data. The CRF includes demographic and clinical variables (information from T0) and information already registered in the institutional electronic medical records system. Information from time points 1 and 2 will be recorded by a respiratory therapist. Each therapist, together with the ICU research team, will record data at time points 3 and 4. Finally, an ICU research team member will contact the patients through a phone call or their relatives to verify their health status 90 days after intubation (T5).

Both the clinical and research teams will receive training on the proper completion of the case report form (CRF) and other study forms, which can be consulted as S7 File. Clear procedures will be established to ensure consistent data collection among the teams. The following strategies will be implemented:

  • Data Verification: Two members of the clinical team will verify any extreme or outlier values identified between T0 and T4 to ensure accuracy and determine whether these values reflect true clinical outcomes or potential data entry errors.

  • Electronic CRF: An electronic CRF and other study forms will be used to capture hours and dates related to each specific study time point, facilitating the monitoring of adherence to the study protocol.

If a patient provides their informed consent and wishes to withdraw from the study, we will inquire about their reasons for discontinuing participation. Similarly, if a patient is withdrawn or deviates from the study protocol for any reason, this information will be summarized and published in the final report and scientific paper. Nonetheless, we will perform an intention-to-treat analysis and a sensitivity analysis that includes patient data up until the time point where they revoked consent or deviated from the protocol. All patients who experience serious adverse events will be included in the analysis.

Data management

Study data will be recorded in an electronic CRF on the REDCap platform (https://www.project-redcap.org/) using the randomized identification number assigned to each study participant. Relevant information from the institutional electronic medical records system will be extracted and entered into the electronic CRF.

To ensure data quality and reliability, we will implement the following strategies:

  • Data Entry Checking: Verification of consistency, incongruities, reliability, outliers, and missing CRF data at the time of data entry in REDCap.

  • Double Data Entry: Two independent researchers will enter the data, and the resulting databases will be compared to identify any discrepancies.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses will be conducted by data analysts blinded to group allocation to ensure unbiased results. The analyses will follow the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle and will be performed using R software.

The normality of quantitative variables will be assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test. Normally distributed variables will be presented as means with standard deviations, while non-normally distributed variables will be reported as medians with interquartile ranges. Qualitative variables will be expressed as frequencies and proportions.

Comparisons between groups will use appropriate tests depending on data type and distribution:

  • Continuous variables: T-test or Mann-Whitney U test.

  • Categorical variables: χ² test or Fisher’s exact test.

Primary outcome analysis.

The primary outcome, duration of mechanical ventilation, will be analyzed as follows:

  1. Comparison of Means: A T-test (or Mann-Whitney U test for non-normal distributions) will compare the means between groups.

  2. Survival Analysis: Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression models will account for the time-dependent nature of the outcome. Patients still ventilated at the end of the follow-up period (up to 28 days) will be treated as censored observations. Differences between groups will be assessed using a log-rank test.

For patients withdrawn while still ventilated, their duration on ventilation will also be treated as a censored observation to maintain adherence to the ITT principle.

Secondary and subgroup analyses.

  1. Ventilator Parameters Analysis: Ventilator parameters (e.g., tidal volume, respiratory rate, PEEP, FiO₂, plateau pressure, airway resistance, PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio) will be recorded daily, ideally before the physiotherapy session. Baseline parameters will be compared between groups using T-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests. Daily data will be analyzed to identify trends over time and relationships with the intervention using repeated measures or mixed-effects models.

  2. Subgroup Analyses: Patients with ICU stays shorter than 72 hours will be compared with those with longer stays to explore differences in outcomes. Sensitivity analyses will evaluate the effect of including or excluding patients with shorter ICU stays or those withdrawn due to complications.

Multivariable analyses.

Factors influencing the duration of mechanical ventilation will be explored through univariable Cox regression models. Variables with a p-value <0.25 or clinical relevance (e.g., age, sex, delirium) will be included in multivariable models, refined using a backward stepwise approach based on Akaike (AIC) and Bayesian (BIC) information criteria. The linearity of continuous variables will be verified using Martingale residual plots, with stratification applied for non-linear relationships.

Confounding and interaction assessment.

Potential confounders will be evaluated by secondary regression models. Variables causing a change >15%-20% in adjusted estimates will be retained as confounders. Interaction effects will be assessed by introducing interaction terms into regression models, with significance determined at p < 0.05.

Extreme values.

Regression models will be used to identify leverage points that could disproportionately influence results. Extreme values that do not alter the model will remain in the analysis, as they may represent clinically relevant findings.

AE analysis.

Descriptive statistics will summarize the frequency and distribution of AE across different grades. Statistical comparisons between groups will be performed to evaluate differences.

Sensitivity analyses.

Sensitivity analyses will evaluate the impact of patient withdrawals and protocol deviations on study outcomes. If no statistically significant differences are observed, a post-hoc power analysis will determine whether the sample size was sufficient to detect meaningful differences.

Logistic regression models.

Logistic regression will analyze dichotomous outcomes such as failed extubation, post-extubation non-invasive ventilation, tracheostomy, prolonged mechanical ventilation, and dysphonia. Assumptions of logistic regression, including linearity in the log-odds, independence of errors, and absence of multicollinearity, will be verified through residual diagnostics.

Dissemination

Dissemination

We are committed to the complete and transparent publication of all study results, whether positive or negative. Once the data are analyzed, the results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at both Colombian and international events.

We will include as authors every individual who meets the criteria and recommendations proposed by McNutt and colleagues [19]. Once the manuscript is prepared, it will be submitted to American Journal Experts for grammar, style, and spell checking. No additional editing services or artificial intelligence will be used for manuscript enhancement.

Trial status

We have not yet recruited the first patient. We plan to start in April 2025 and expect to finish in April 2026. The data will be stored in our institutional Redcap platform and will be accessible upon reasonable request.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. SPIRIT 2013 Checklist.

(PDF)

pone.0324335.s001.pdf (3.8MB, pdf)
S2 File. Protocol. The Spanish protocol was approved by the research ethics committee.

(PDF)

pone.0324335.s002.pdf (3.6MB, pdf)
S3 Protocol. The study protocol translated to English.

(PDF)

pone.0324335.s003.pdf (3.6MB, pdf)
S4 File. Informed Consent in Spanish.

(PDF)

pone.0324335.s004.pdf (494.9KB, pdf)
S5 File. Informed Consent in English.

(PDF)

pone.0324335.s005.pdf (524.5KB, pdf)
S6 File. Checklist. OMAHA+ Assessment Checklist.

(PDF)

pone.0324335.s006.pdf (112.3KB, pdf)
S7 File. CRF. Case report form.

(PDF)

pone.0324335.s007.pdf (74.5KB, pdf)

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Schwitzer E, Jensen KS, Brinkman L, DeFrancia L, VanVleet J, Baqi E, et al. Survival ≠ Recovery. CHEST Critical Care. 2023;1(1):100003. doi: 10.1016/j.chstcc.2023.100003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rawal G, Yadav S, Kumar R. Post-intensive Care Syndrome: an Overview. J Transl Int Med. 2017;5(2):90–2. doi: 10.1515/jtim-2016-0016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Na SJ, Ko R-E, Nam J, Ko MG, Jeon K. Factors associated with prolonged weaning from mechanical ventilation in medical patients. Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2022;16:17534666221117005. doi: 10.1177/17534666221117005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Parry SM, Nydahl P, Needham DM. Implementing early physical rehabilitation and mobilisation in the ICU: institutional, clinician, and patient considerations. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(4):470–3. doi: 10.1007/s00134-017-4908-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Menges D, Seiler B, Tomonaga Y, Schwenkglenks M, Puhan MA, Yebyo HG. Systematic early versus late mobilization or standard early mobilization in mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2021;25(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-03446-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Castro-Avila AC, Serón P, Fan E, Gaete M, Mickan S. Effect of Early Rehabilitation during Intensive Care Unit Stay on Functional Status: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0130722. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130722 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Berry MJ, Morris PE. Early exercise rehabilitation of muscle weakness in acute respiratory failure patients. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2013;41(4):208–15. doi: 10.1097/JES.0b013e3182a4e67c [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zhang L, Hu W, Cai Z, Liu J, Wu J, Deng Y, et al. Early mobilization of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2019;14(10):e0223185. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223185 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Dickersin K, Moher D. SPIRIT 2013: new guidance for content of clinical trial protocols. Lancet. 2013;381(9861):91–2. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62160-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bibbins-Domingo K, Brubaker L, Curfman G. The 2024 Revision to the Declaration of Helsinki: Modern Ethics for Medical Research. JAMA. 2025;333(1):30–1. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.22530 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.The Belmont Report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Manual for Research Ethics Committees. Cambridge University Press. 2003;126–32. doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511550089.028 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ministerio de Salud. Resolución 8430 de 1993. Bogotá: Ministerio de Salud; Oct 4, 1993;1–19. https://www.minsalud.gov.co/sites/rid/Lists/BibliotecaDigital/RIDE/DE/DIJ/RESOLUCION-8430-DE-1993.PDF [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Congreso de la República. Ley 1581 de 2012. Por la cual se dictan disposiciones generales para la protección de datos personales. Bogotá: Congreso de Colombia; Oct 17, 2012;1–9. https://www.funcionpublica.gov.co/eva/gestornormativo/norma.php?i=49981 [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ministerio deProtección Social. Resolución No. 2378 de 2008. s Buenas Prácticas Clínicas para las instituciones que conducen investigación con medicamentos en seres humanos 2008. https://www.alcaldiabogota.gov.co/sisjur/normas/Norma1.jsp?i=31169&dt=S [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sellares J, Ferrer M, Cano E, Loureiro H, Valencia M, Torres A. Predictors of prolonged weaning and survival during ventilator weaning in a respiratory ICU. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37(5):775–84. doi: 10.1007/s00134-011-2179-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.U.S. Department of health and human services. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 5.0. NIH Publication. 2017;1–155. https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/electronic_applications/ctc.htm [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ethical GmbH. The protocol deviations handbook v 1.0. 1st ed. 2021. https://www.protocoldeviation.com/Protocol-Deviation/protocol-deviation-handbook [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Schweickert WD, Pohlman MC, Pohlman AS, Nigos C, Pawlik AJ, Esbrook CL, et al. Early physical and occupational therapy in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;373(9678):1874–82. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60658-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.McNutt MK, Bradford M, Drazen JM, Hanson B, Howard B, Jamieson KH, et al. Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(11):2557–60. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1715374115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Steven E Wolf

3 Sep 2024

PONE-D-24-31135Efficacy and Safety of the Early Implementation of a Multimodal Rehabilitation Program in Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial ProtocolPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alvarado Sánchez,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.  The issues appear to be mostly statistical in nature as well as with the study design.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 14 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Steven E. Wolf, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: There are some major statistical problems in this protocol:

1. A survival analysis is given as the data analysis technique for the primary outcome, yet the sample size is based on a t-test. The test of equality of survival curves must use sample size formulas based on survival data (e.g., Rosenberger and Lachin, Randomization in Clinical Trials, Wiley, 2016, Section 2.6.3).

2. The randomization procedure ("computer generated") is not given, nor a discussion of potential stratification, blocking, etc. (e.g., Rosenberger and Lachin, Randomization in Clinical Trials, Wiley, 2016, Chapter 3).

3. Sealed envelopes were used in the 1948 streptomycin trial, but these days we use computer generated assignments available through Redcap or on a Shiny app.

4. The data analysts obviously cannot be blinded to the data! How can they do comparisons and test the primary outcome if they are blinded? What needs to be blinded is the assessment of the primary outcome, which should be done independently of those providing the intervention.

5. Very complicated set of interventions, but if successful, the results will be interesting.

Reviewer #2: Manuscript PONE-D-24-31135

Title: Efficacy and Safety of the Early Implementation of a Multimodal Rehabilitation Program in Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial Protocol

Thank you to the authors for a well-articulated and referenced manuscript. The study protocol requires additional methodological detail and consideration of the most appropriate outcome measure for this study. The manuscript will be publishable with moderate adjustments, particularly to the Introduction and Methods, in this reviewer’s view.

The fundamental question for the authors in the study design is to consider whether starting the input two days (48hrs) apart is enough to create a measurable study effect, and whether the sample groups are large enough to observe this effect. For instance, tailoring interventions to the RASS score could result in participants from both groups receiving similar and, or low volumes of therapy because heavy sedation or agitation excludes them for two days of their stay from receiving ‘active’ treatments.

Please adjust the manuscript and, or respond to the comments below.

Abstract:

1. Please make it clearer for the reader as to how will the RASS score affect therapy input.

Introduction:

2. The study justification as articulated in the Introduction needs rework. The primary outcome measure is not post-ICU outcomes as purported as the main reason for early intervention, it is time on the ventilator. Why would the investigators not use a primary measure that is a post-ICU physical or quality of life outcome, as justified in by the Introduction?

Methods:

3. Eligibility Criteria – requires additional detail and justification.

4. Will patients with ICU length of stay shorter than 72 hours be included? How will this be accounted for in the study and statistical analyses? How might this impact the efficacy of group allocation (randomisation)?

5. Line 181 - Will patients with isolated smoke inhalation injury (airway burn) be excluded? If so, why?

6. Line 183 - Why are patients with COPD excluded?

7. Line 187 - How will life expectancy criteria be applied at recruitment?

8. Line 204 - Currently the daily number of treatments is not standardised. This reviewer strongly suggests that the number of intervention events be standardised to one or two per day per discipline to reduce study variability.

9. Similarly, the volume of treatment (minutes of input) applied per participant is a significant variable in this study. How will the investigators account for the daily differences?

10. Line 212 - Is there a better way to schedule the interventions to reduce variation in active treatment volume per patient? For instance, rather than accept that therapy is not completed or sessions markedly shortened due to periods of high sedation and agitation, could the investigators apply a RASS driven protocol which optimises the daily input (minimises down time) for the patient through the standardising treatment according to the strengths of different disciplines of the team?

11. Line 299 – How will adverse events be managed in the study analyses?

12. Line 308 – Will the patient withdrawn due to complications no longer receive treatment in ICU? Is there any specific justification for why those with complications are withdrawn? Complications are relatively common in ICU and strictly applying this criteria may impact the sample size, feasibility of the study and ability to measure secondary outcomes with integrity.

13. Line 314 – This criterion is troublesome as the treatment is not standardised. How will non-compliance be confirmed and at what ‘amount’ of deviation from the protocol will constitute need for withdrawal? More detail needed please.

14. Line 328 – How will transfers to another facility be treated? Will their data prior to transfer be included in the study?

Outcomes

15. Line 356 – how often will ventilator parameters be collected and how will they be included in the Statistical Analyses?

16. The primary outcome is not justified by the Introduction as it focusses on post-ICU acquired weakness, PICS, physical and quality of life outcomes. It would seem more likely that the primary outcome has been chosen for convenience and not related to the substance of the study and planned interventions?

17. Line 371 – cardiac arrythmias are mentioned as a reason for withdrawal earlier. How will adverse events be delineated as an occurrence to be recorded, or result in participant withdrawal which will affect the sample size and power of the trial analyses?

18. Line 384 – The criteria 28 days after intubation or hospital discharge is ambiguous. Please clarify.

Participant Timeline

19. Line 414 – is there a typo – 24-72 hours post-extubation?

Sample Size

20. Line 438 – 440 – is there a typo related to the group description for SD1 and SD2?

21. The primary outcome is measured in hours, however the sample size has been calculated using days. Does this make a difference to the mathematics of the calculation?

22. The sample size seems particularly low for an ICU study. There are a multitude of variables which could affect the time ventilated (including the patient diagnosis or reason for critical care), the standardisation of the interventions and cause withdrawal of a patient according to the proposed criteria. Has the mathematics of this sample size calculation been applied to account for so many variables which may not be managed effectively by stratification of random allocation? Please revisit.

Recruitment and Allocation

23. Stratification for age has been applied. Why not also for diagnosis?

Data collection and management

24. It is unclear how long a patient needs to remain in the study before their case is considered as part of the sample. For instance, with short ICU length of stay, will there be adequate time for the interventions to be applied and impact the outcome?

25. Line 501 – Data verification – this statement reads like a statistical ‘get out of jail free’ card. Why would extreme values be assessed for verification if not to exclude them from the study analysis? Please clarify the intent of this action in the study.

26. Line 508 - ? typo (tense) – please check expression.

Statistical Analysis

27. Exactly which variables will be carried forward using the intention-to-treat principles?

28. Line 544 - Please explain the risk variable. If the patient is not extubated, how can the time of mechanical ventilation be used in the proposed variable? How is this model interpreted? Also, as time on the ventilator is the primary variable, how can it be included as a co-variate in the same statistical model?

29. The statistical modelling is complex and involves not only known variables but also interaction terms and ad hoc tests. Is the relatively small sample size with repeated measures longitudinal design likely to support an interpretable analysis for any of the secondary outcomes?

Figures

30. Figure 1 – The interventions subsection doesn’t add value or needs adjustment to demonstrate that the group allocation (time and volume of interventions) is the key variable in the study.

Thank you for developing this study.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dale Wesley Edgar

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 May 19;20(5):e0324335. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324335.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 1


16 Oct 2024

Letter to reviewers

Dear Editor,

Thank you for allowing us to send you the revised version of our study protocol. Below, you will find the responses to each of your requirements.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

We have reviewed the manuscript and supplemental material and adjusted to the PLOS ONE’s style requirements.

2. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your request regarding the Data Availability Statement, we have updated it as follows:

• Data Availability Statement: All data generated or analyzed during this study will be available upon study completion and reasonable request. If the data cannot be made publicly accessible, this will be clearly stated along with the reasons. Currently, all relevant data are included in the manuscript or supporting information files.

We hope this revision meets the requirements, and we remain available for any further clarification.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

Thank you for your feedback. We have made the necessary adjustments, and the ethics statement now appears only in the Methods section of the manuscript, as requested.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: There are some major statistical problems in this protocol:

1. A survival analysis is given as the data analysis technique for the primary outcome, yet the sample size is based on a t-test. The test of equality of survival curves must use sample size formulas based on survival data (e.g., Rosenberger and Lachin, Randomization in Clinical Trials, Wiley, 2016, Section 2.6.3).

Thank you for your insightful feedback. We would like to clarify that our primary outcome, the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, was conceptualized and analyzed as a quantitative variable in units of time (days), not as a time-to-event variable typically used in survival analysis. For this reason, we did not consider the survival analysis into the sample size estimation. We used a difference in means approach, which we deemed more appropriate for this outcome.

In the revised manuscript, we have clarified this distinction to ensure that the variable is correctly understood as quantitative (days), and not a time-to-event outcome (lines 366-370). Although our outcome could be perceived as time-dependent, we felt that analyzing it as a difference in means better aligned with the nature of the data and our research objectives.

We acknowledge your suggestion regarding the use of survival data formulas and will carefully consider this point in future analyses or similar studies

2. The randomization procedure ("computer generated") is not given, nor a discussion of potential stratification, blocking, etc. (e.g., Rosenberger and Lachin, Randomization in Clinical Trials, Wiley, 2016, Chapter 3).

Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your suggestion regarding the randomization procedure, in the protocol we included a stratified randomization strategy. Specifically, participants will be stratified by age (<65 and ≥65 years), sex (male and female) and comorbidities (Charlson comorbidity index <8 and ≥8) resulting in eight strata. We added his information in the manuscript (lines 493-496).

3. Sealed envelopes were used in the 1948 streptomycin trial, but these days we use computer generated assignments available through Redcap or on a Shiny app.

Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding the randomization procedure. We changed the sealed envelopes to a random allocation sequence provided by REDCap (lines 493-503).

4. The data analysts obviously cannot be blinded to the data! How can they do comparisons and test the primary outcome if they are blinded? What needs to be blinded is the assessment of the primary outcome, which should be done independently of those providing the intervention.

Thank you for your valuable observation. We agree that it is not feasible to blind the data analysts to the data itself. To address your concern, we have clarified that the assessment of the primary outcome will be performed by an independent evaluator, who will be blinded to the group assignments (lines 507-512 and 568-569). This ensures that the outcome assessment is done objectively and independently from those providing the intervention. The data analysts will have access to the full dataset for the statistical analysis.

5. Very complicated set of interventions, but if successful, the results will be interesting.

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We appreciate your recognition of the complexity and potential impact of our study.

Reviewer #2: Manuscript PONE-D-24-31135

Title: Efficacy and Safety of the Early Implementation of a Multimodal Rehabilitation Program in Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial Protocol

Thank you to the authors for a well-articulated and referenced manuscript. The study protocol requires additional methodological detail and consideration of the most appropriate outcome measure for this study. The manuscript will be publishable with moderate adjustments, particularly to the Introduction and Methods, in this reviewer’s view.

The fundamental question for the authors in the study design is to consider whether starting the input two days (48hrs) apart is enough to create a measurable study effect, and whether the sample groups are large enough to observe this effect. For instance, tailoring interventions to the RASS score could result in participants from both groups receiving similar and, or low volumes of therapy because heavy sedation or agitation excludes them for two days of their stay from receiving ‘active’ treatments.

Please adjust the manuscript and or respond to the comments below.

Abstract:

1. Please make it clearer for the reader as to how will the RASS score affect therapy input.

Thank you for your helpful feedback. We have revised the abstract to clarify how the RASS score influences therapy input (lines 55-62). Specifically, therapy intensity and type are now explicitly adjusted according to the patient’s RASS score, with passive interventions for those with lower scores (indicating deeper sedation) and more active therapies for patients with higher scores (indicating lighter sedation or alertness). This adaptive approach ensures that the therapy is tailored to each patient’s clinical condition (Table 1 and lines 224-236).

Introduction:

2. The study justification as articulated in the Introduction needs rework. The primary outcome measure is not post-ICU outcomes as purported as the main reason for early intervention, it is time on the ventilator. Why would the investigators not use a primary measure that is a post-ICU physical or quality of life outcome, as justified in by the Introduction?

Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your comment, we have revised the Introduction to clarify the justification for our study. Specifically, we have emphasized that the duration of mechanical ventilation is a key driver of adverse outcomes, such as those seen in post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) and is therefore an important target for early intervention. We have also highlighted how the primary outcome (time on the ventilator) aligns with the study’s aim of reducing long-term complications by addressing this critical factor (lines 76-86).

Methods:

3. Eligibility Criteria – requires additional detail and justification.

Thank you for your feedback regarding the eligibility criteria. We have revised this section to provide additional detail and justification for each inclusion and exclusion criterion (lines 183-190). Specifically, we now clarify that:

• A Barthel score ≥70 ensures participants have a reasonable level of functional independence pre-ICU, allowing for accurate assessment of the rehabilitation intervention’s impact.

• Invasive mechanical ventilation >24 hours ensures that patients have a sufficient duration of mechanical support to benefit from early rehabilitation.

4. Will patients with ICU length of stay shorter than 72 hours be included? How will this be accounted for in the study and statistical analyses? How might this impact the efficacy of group allocation (randomisation)?

Patients with ICU stays shorter than 72 hours will be included in the study. However, we recognize that shorter stays might impact their exposure to the full intervention. To address this:

• Primary Analysis: We will conduct an intention-to-treat analysis, where all randomized patients are analyzed in the groups they were assigned to, regardless of the length of their ICU stay or the level of intervention received.

• Secondary Analysis: We will perform a sensitivity analysis excluding patients with stays shorter than 72 hours to assess how this impacts the results. Additionally, a subgroup analysis will compare outcomes between patients with longer and shorter ICU stays.

• Statistical Adjustments: The duration of ICU stay will be included as a covariate in the statistical models to control for its impact on the primary outcome.

• Randomization Impact: Randomization will occur upon ICU admission, ensuring that the group assignment is not biased by predicted ICU stay. We will assess balance between groups post-randomization and implement adjustments if necessary.

(See statistical analysis section).

5. Line 181 - Will patients with isolated smoke inhalation injury (airway burn) be excluded? If so, why?

Thank you for your question. Yes, patients with isolated smoke inhalation injury (airway burn) will be excluded from the study (line 198). It is well known that these patients often require prolonged mechanical ventilation due to the nature of their injury, which could introduce significant variability into our study outcomes. Given that the primary outcome is the duration of mechanical ventilation, including these patients could skew the results and make it difficult to assess the effects of the intervention on the general ICU population (https://doi.org/10.1042/CS20040135).

6. Line 183 - Why are patients with COPD excluded?

Thank you for your question. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are excluded from the study because they tend to require prolonged mechanical ventilation due to their underlying respiratory dysfunction. Including COPD patients could introduce variability in the primary outcome (duration of mechanical ventilation), making it more challenging to isolate the effects of the intervention on the general ICU population.

According to Sellares et al. (2011), COPD was identified as a significant predictor of prolonged weaning from mechanical ventilation, with an odds ratio of 2.97 (95% CI: 1.29–6.82). This finding further supports the exclusion of COPD patients to ensure that the study results are not biased by this group’s typically prolonged ventilation requirements.

Reference:

1. Sellares J, Ferrer M, Cano E, et al. Predictors of prolonged weaning and survival during ventilator weaning in a respiratory ICU. Intensive Care Medicine. 2011;37(5):775-784.

7. Line 187 - How will life expectancy criteria be applied at recruitment?

Thank you for your question. The life expectancy criterion (≤180 days) will be applied at recruitment based on a combination of factors, including:

1. Primary diagnosis and comorbidities, such as advanced cancer, end-stage heart failure, or other critical irreversible conditions.

2. Medical judgment of the ICU team, considering the patient’s recent clinical course and overall prognosis.

3. Functional status, as measured by the Barthel index, which is already included in our study to assess the patient’s ability to perform activities of daily living.

This multi-faceted approach will ensure that only patients who are likely to benefit from the intervention are included in the study, while avoiding potential bias introduced by including patients with very limited life expectancy (see exclusion criteria).

8. Line 204 - Currently the daily number of treatments is not standardised. This reviewer strongly suggests that the number of intervention events be standardised to one or two per day per discipline to reduce study variability.

9. Similarly, the volume of treatment (minutes of input) applied per participant is a significant variable in this study. How will the investigators account for the daily differences?

10. Line 212 - Is there a better way to schedule the interventions to reduce variation in active treatment volume per patient? For instance, rather than accept that therapy is not completed or sessions markedly shortened due to periods of high sedation and agitation, could the investigators apply a RASS driven protocol which optimises the daily input (minimises down time) for the patient through the standardising treatment according to the strengths of different disciplines of the team?

Thank you for your insightful feedback. In response to your comments, we have standardized the interventions while maintaining different volumes for each therapy (Table 1). Speech therapy will consist of two sessions of 10 minutes per day, while both physical therapy and respiratory therapy will involve two sessions of 30 minutes per day. Occupational therapy will be provided once daily for 30 minutes. We have also aligned the interventions with a RASS-driven protocol to optimize treatment and minimize downtime.

• For patients with a RASS ≤ -2, passive and passive-assisted interventions will focus on maintaining joint mobility, sensory input, and pulmonary function.

• For patients with a RASS between -1 and +1, more active rehabilitation will be provided, including motor activation, respiratory exercises, and cognitive tasks.

• For patients with a RASS ≥ 2, physical, speech, and respiratory therapies will continue as prescribed for the -1 to +1 group. However, occupational therapy will shift focus towards behavioral and environmental modulation to reduce agitation, incorporating sensory stimuli and family education to promote spatiotemporal orientation.

11. Line 299 – How will adverse events be managed in the study analyses?

Adverse events will be systematically recorded and categorized according to their severity and their relationship to the intervention. Serious adverse events include altered blood pressure, cardiac arrhythmia, oxygen desaturation, agitation requiring sedation, removal of invasive lines, altered neurological status, accidental extubation, healthcare-associated pneumonia, and bronchoaspiration. These events will be carefully monitored throughout the study.

Adverse events will be analyzed descriptively, with the frequency and type of events reported for each study group. In addition, an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis will be applied for the primary outcome, ensuring that participants who are withdrawn due to serious adverse events remain in the analysis according to their original group assignment. Secondary safety analyses will be conducted to compare the incidence of adverse events between the groups and to assess the overall safety profile of the interventions (see Patient withdrawal and statistical analysis sections)

12. Line 308 – Will the patient withdrawn due to complications no longer receive treatment

Attachment

Submitted filename: Letter to reviewer.docx

pone.0324335.s008.docx (38.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Steven E Wolf

21 Nov 2024

PONE-D-24-31135R1Efficacy and Safety of the Early Implementation of a Multimodal Rehabilitation Program in Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial ProtocolPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alvarado Sánchez,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 05 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Steven E. Wolf, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

We note that your manuscript indicates that you plan to start data collection in October 2024. As studies presented in a Registered Report Protocol should not begin data collection before the submission has been accepted for publication, please confirm whether data collection has not yet started

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Thank you to the authors for their respectful and responsive revisions. There are additional minor clarifications requested to ensure that the study protocol would be replicable by others and for the authors to review exclusion criteria in order to prevent unnecessary exclusions and, or early terminations from the study (please address 31 comments in the attached PDF).

Lastly, please also reconsider the choice of primary outcome. This reviewer argues that the current plan is not reflective of the ethos of the study intervention and the authors be implored to be brave in their choice of a patient centric and allied health linked primary outcome.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dale W. Edgar

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-31135_R1_DE_07112024.pdf

pone.0324335.s009.pdf (4.7MB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2025 May 19;20(5):e0324335. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324335.r005

Author response to Decision Letter 2


6 Jan 2025

Letter to reviewer

Thank you for allowing us to send you the revised version of our study protocol. Below, you will find the responses to each of your requirements.

1. Thank you for making these adjustments. It is important that the interventions are tailored to behavior eg agitation, not simply a RASS score as patient alertness does not equate directly with cooperation with therapy.

Response: Thank you for your thoughtful observation. We recognize that tailoring interventions to patient behavior, such as agitation or cooperation, is crucial. As detailed in the RASS-Driven Protocol (lines 248-258) the RASS score serves as a foundational guide, but therapy interventions are further adjusted in real-time based on the patient’s behavior and readiness to cooperate. This ensures a personalized approach that considers both sedation levels and the patient’s behavioral state.

To enhance clarity, we have updated the abstract to reflect this nuance, ensuring consistency with the protocol and manuscript (lines 61-64). We appreciate your attention to this important detail.

2. This response is remarkably challengeable as much as it relates to the choice of outcome which is convenient.

Is mechanical ventilation a key driver of adverse outcomes or is it a marker of other factors which are far more likely to correlate with complications and adverse outcomes, especially post-ICU syndrome? For example, to be mechanically ventilated requires sedation and muscle relaxants as well as a cocktail of other pharmacological interventions which are likely to be primary drivers of post-ICU syndrome. Further, bed rest associated with mechanical ventilation is likely to be implicated as a direct cause of multiple adverse events.

Is there a specific reason that the authors are avoiding a more contemporary approach with a patient centric measure, particularly one that would be a marker of impact or severity of post-ICU syndrome, as their primary outcome?

Response:

Thank you for your insightful feedback. We acknowledge the nuanced relationship between mechanical ventilation and adverse outcomes such as post-ICU syndrome (PICS). While mechanical ventilation itself may not be the sole driver of these complications, it is a significant surrogate marker of critical illness severity and a key modifiable factor in ICU management. As such, its duration is a clinically relevant outcome that aligns with our study's aim to mitigate long-term complications through early multimodal rehabilitation.

We have clarified in the manuscript that mechanical ventilation duration reflects not only the time spent on ventilatory support but also the cumulative effects of associated interventions, such as sedation, neuromuscular blockade, and immobility, all of which contribute to PICS. By targeting a reduction in ventilator days, we aim to address these underlying factors, thereby indirectly influencing post-ICU outcomes.

The choice of this primary outcome also considers practical and methodological reasons. Mechanical ventilation duration is:

• Objective and measurable: Unlike quality-of-life measures, which are often subjective and influenced by a range of confounding factors, ventilator duration is directly linked to ICU management strategies and provides a clear endpoint for evaluating the efficacy of early rehabilitation.

• Proven relevance: Studies, including those cited in the manuscript, have demonstrated that reducing ventilator days is associated with improved muscle strength, earlier mobilization, and potentially better long-term recovery.

We recognize the value of more patient-centric outcomes, particularly those that assess the severity or impact of PICS. To address this, we have included secondary and exploratory outcomes, such as post-extubation muscle strength, Barthel Index scores, and quality-of-life assessments at 28 and 90 days post-intubation. These outcomes will provide a broader perspective on the long-term impact of our intervention while complementing the primary outcome.

We have revised the Introduction to explicitly address these points, emphasizing the rationale for our primary outcome while acknowledging its relationship to other factors driving adverse outcomes. Additionally, we highlight the inclusion of patient-centric measures as secondary endpoints to capture the broader impact of early rehabilitation.

We appreciate your thoughtful comment, which has helped refine and strengthen the study’s justification

3. This response is self contradicting in the context of the intervention. Would the authors not be interested in determining if their intervention was effective in reducing mechanical ventilation time for those with prolonged critical care support needs?

Response: Thank you for this insightful comment. We recognize the potential value of evaluating the intervention in patients with prolonged critical care support needs, such as those with isolated smoke inhalation injuries. However, our decision to exclude these patients was based on several considerations.

First, in our clinical setting, patients with airway burns often have concurrent extensive burns involving large areas of body surface. This adds significant complexity to their clinical course, including increased risk of infections, fluid imbalances, and metabolic demands, which further prolong mechanical ventilation and ICU stays. These factors introduce considerable variability that could confound the study outcomes and obscure the true effects of the multimodal rehabilitation program in the broader ICU population.

Second, the pathophysiology and clinical management of patients with airway burns differ substantially from those without these injuries. The severe airway inflammation, necrosis, and obstruction typical in these cases often require prolonged ventilatory support, independent of rehabilitation interventions. Including such a group might bias the results and make it challenging to assess the efficacy of our intervention for the general ICU population.

Finally, our primary goal in this trial is to evaluate the intervention in a more homogenous population where factors influencing the duration of mechanical ventilation—such as immobility and sedation practices—are modifiable through early rehabilitation. Including highly complex subpopulations like these could dilute the observed effects of the intervention.

That said, we acknowledge the importance of assessing the efficacy of our program in subpopulations with unique critical care needs. The findings from this study will help establish a foundation for future research to explore the program’s potential benefits in patients with airway burns and other complex conditions.

4. Thank you - please add a short justification with this reference to the Exclusion criteria.

Response: The justification for excluding COPD patients has been added to the exclusion criteria as requested (lines 215-217).

5. Thank you - please summarize this additional detail into the Exclusion criteria section.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have summarized the additional details regarding the life expectancy criterion into the exclusion criteria section, specifying that patients with a life expectancy of ≤180 days will be excluded based on their primary diagnosis, comorbidities, recent clinical course, medical judgment by the ICU team, and functional status as assessed by the Barthel index (lines 222-225).

6. Could the Clavien-Dindo classifications be an appropriate framework to use in this instance?

Response: Thank you for your comment. The Clavien-Dindo classification has been exclusively used to categorize surgical complications. Thus, this classification is inappropriate for our study. We decided to use the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events classification which has been used primarily in oncological studies, but it is also used in other context such as clinical trials (lines 270-302).

7. This is important however, if the primary outcome remains time on the ventilator, how will the ITT principle be able to be applied if the patient is withdrawn while still ventilated?

Also, if the adverse event is deemed by the treating intensive care physician NOT to be related to the multimodal rehab, why would the patient be removed from the study and an adverse reaction recorded as associated with the study intervention?

Response: Thank you for your insightful question. The intention-to-treat (ITT) principle will still be applied to ensure the integrity of the primary outcome, even for patients who are withdrawn while still ventilated. Specifically:

a) Primary Outcome (Time on Ventilator): For patients withdrawn due to complications, their time on the ventilator will be recorded up until the point of withdrawal. This data will be included in the analysis as censored observations, acknowledging that the true duration of ventilation could not be fully captured due to withdrawal. This approach ensures that their contribution to the primary outcome is preserved without biasing the results.

b) Statistical Handling: In the analysis, survival methods such as Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression models will be used to account for censored data. This ensures that the duration of ventilation for withdrawn patients is appropriately incorporated without compromising the ITT principle or the validity of the results.

c) Subgroup and Sensitivity Analyses: Additional analyses will explore the potential impact of withdrawn patients on the study outcomes. These analyses will help determine whether their withdrawal introduces any systematic differences and ensure the robustness of the study conclusions.

Not all participants who experience an adverse event or complication will be withdrawn from the study. In the literature, most common adverse events in clinical trials are grade 1 and 2. Therefore, participants experiencing minor adverse events should not be withdrawn from the study solely for experiencing an adverse event, but based on an analysis of the adverse event. Nonetheless they will be informed regarding the adverse event and ask if they want to continue to participate. Severe adverse events will be analyzed by the ethics committee and they will determine if the participant continues in the study (lines 292-307).

By combining these methods, we aim to uphold the ITT principle while balancing patient safety and maintaining the validity of the primary outcome analysis. Thank you for raising this critical point. It has helped clarify our approach to managing these cases.

8. Thank you for these changes. There are multiple non-patient related reasons for why a participant does not adhere to a research study protocol - including staffing in the ICU; surgery; procedures including central line changes and insertions; and, poorly controlled sedation practices. To exclude patients from the study for reasons such as these may impact the study sample size greatly and thus, it would be an enhancement to the design if it was adjusted to maintain patients with deviations from protocol which are related to such events which are beyond the control of the patient and the researchers.

Response: Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. We completely agree that deviations from the protocol due to factors beyond the control of the patient or researchers, such as ICU staffing limitations, surgeries, procedures, or sedation management, should not lead to automatic withdrawal. To address this concern, we have revised our protocol to account for these scenarios and ensure the study sample size is maintained without compromising the integrity of the analysis (lines 381-411).

9. Is there any reason why these data couldn't be recorded daily? For example, with the morning physiotherapy treatment, record the ventilator settings.

Response: Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. We agree that collecting ventilator parameters daily, particularly in conjunction with the morning physiotherapy treatment, could provide valuable insights into the dynamic evolution of mechanical ventilation and its relationship with the intervention.

To enhance the study design while balancing feasibility, we propose the following adjustments:

a) Daily Collection: Ventilator parameters will be recorded daily, at a consistent time, ideally before the physiotherapy session. This will ensure that data are standardized and reflective of the patient's baseline respiratory status before the intervention (lines 426-429).

b) Expanded Analysis: These additional data points will be analyzed as an exploratory outcome to assess trends in ventilator support requirements over time and their relationship to the intervention. This could provide further insights into the impact of the program on ventilatory dependency (lines 490-506).

c) Primary Outcome Integrity: The daily recordings will complement the primary outcome analysis without introducing additional complexity, as the primary comparison of baseline ventilator settings will still focus on demonstrating equivalence between groups.

By implementing this adjustment, we aim to enrich the study data without overburdening the clinical team. Thank you for highlighting this opportunity to strengthen our research methodology.

10. Please add these explanations into the Statistical Analysis methods.

Response: We have incorporated these explanations into the Statistical Analysis methods section for clarity and transparency (lines 654-733).

11. Reference please.

Response: We added a reference in the introduction (Na SJ, Ko R-E, Nam J, Ko MG, Jeon K. Factors associated with prolonged weaning from mechanical ventilation in medical patients. Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2022;16. doi:10.1177/17534666221117005).

12. Reference please. As noted, mechanical ventilation is a convenient indicator for statistical purposes, but is it the best measure to identify the impact of an early MRP?

Response: Thank you for your observation. Mechanical ventilation was chosen as an indicator due to its well-documented utility in critically ill patients as a proxy for disease severity and the progression of organ dysfunction. While we acknowledge that mechanical ventilation may not be the sole or perfect measure to evaluate the impact of an early MRP, it provides a quantifiable, objective, and clinically relevant endpoint. Moreover, its association with ICU outcomes makes it a convenient and practical indicator for statistical analyses in this context.

13. Is this exclusion applied if the patient has had H&N surgery at any time in the past or within last 2 years prior to admission? How will acute H&N grafting surgery during the ICU admission affect the study participation? Will the patient be excluded mid-protocol?

Response: Thank you for your thoughtful question. In response, we have refined the exclusion criterion and clarified our approach to managing cases involving head and neck (H&N) surgeries:

• Exclusion Criterion: Patients with a history of head and neck surgery at any time prior to ICU admission will be excluded from the study. This is based on the well-documented risk of dysphagia and/or bronchoaspiration associated with head and neck surgeries, which could confound the interpretation of our results by introducing variables unrelated to the MRP being evaluated (line 211).

• Management of Acute Head and Neck Surgeries During ICU Stay:

Patients who undergo acute head and neck surgery during their ICU stay will not be withdrawn from the study. Instead, these cases will be managed as handling minor deviations/external factors:

o Deviations due to such surgeries, along with other ICU procedures (e.g., central line insertions), staffing limitations, or uncontrolled sedation practices, will not lead to participant withdrawal.

o These events will be documented as protocol deviations and addressed in sensitivity analyses to evaluate their potential impact on study outcomes.

This approach ensures adherence to the intention-to-treat principle while maintaining the study’s methodological integrity. By excluding patients with a prior history of head and neck surgery and managing intra-study surgeries as deviations, we aim to minimize confounding variables and ensure a robust analysis of the MRP’s effects.

14. Is this exclusion app

Attachment

Submitted filename: Letter.docx

pone.0324335.s010.docx (32.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Luis Felipe Reyes

24 Apr 2025

Efficacy and Safety of the Early Implementation of a Multimodal Rehabilitation Program in Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial Protocol

PONE-D-24-31135R2

Dear Dr. Alvarado Sánchez,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Luis Felipe Reyes, M.D., Ph.D., MSc.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: All my comments have been addressed adequately. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Reviewer #2: Manuscript PONE-D-24-31135_R2

Title: Efficacy and Safety of the Early Implementation of a Multimodal Rehabilitation Program

in Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial Protocol

Thank you to the authors for their considered and well-articulated responses to the latest review. The additional scientific justifications, increased frequency of primary outcome collection and extra secondary measures improve the study methods replicability as well as the likelihood of achieving interpretable outcomes, if this study is conducted as per protocol. The increased sophistication and clarity of the responses with subsequent reviews demonstrates that the authors have improved this trial and their own research knowledge and skills remarkably during this review process. Thank you to the authors for engaging in the peer review process wholeheartedly and developing this study.

Please note that Ethics Committees are not at the beck and call of researchers and to ask the EC to make real-time determinations of withdrawal of patients from a study in relation to major protocol deviations (added text, Lines 398-405) is not likely to be implementable and could expose the patient to unsafe study conditions. In preference, consider identifying a local clinician such as a ICU physician, preferably independent to the study who can be consulted to make the decision to remove the patient from the study due to adverse events and, or protocol deviations.

In relation to the generalisability and replication of this protocol elsewhere, the author’s points in responses 18 and 26/27 raise one last question. ICU and mechanical ventilation practices for acute burn patients vary considerably around the world. In that, conducting a trial such as this would not be feasible in the reviewer’s burn service because very few patients each year, have an ICU length of stay greater than three days. Do the authors note that only 8 ventilated burn patients were admitted, in total, to their service in 2023 and thus, is this study feasible in the author’s burn unit if it is likely to take > 7 years to complete? It seems an important point to make in this manuscript, that a multisite, collaborative approach is advocated for in order to complete this study in a viable timeframe. Please consider adding that point into Methods.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dale W Edgar

**********

Acceptance letter

Luis Felipe Reyes

PONE-D-24-31135R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alvarado Sánchez,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Luis Felipe Reyes

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. SPIRIT 2013 Checklist.

    (PDF)

    pone.0324335.s001.pdf (3.8MB, pdf)
    S2 File. Protocol. The Spanish protocol was approved by the research ethics committee.

    (PDF)

    pone.0324335.s002.pdf (3.6MB, pdf)
    S3 Protocol. The study protocol translated to English.

    (PDF)

    pone.0324335.s003.pdf (3.6MB, pdf)
    S4 File. Informed Consent in Spanish.

    (PDF)

    pone.0324335.s004.pdf (494.9KB, pdf)
    S5 File. Informed Consent in English.

    (PDF)

    pone.0324335.s005.pdf (524.5KB, pdf)
    S6 File. Checklist. OMAHA+ Assessment Checklist.

    (PDF)

    pone.0324335.s006.pdf (112.3KB, pdf)
    S7 File. CRF. Case report form.

    (PDF)

    pone.0324335.s007.pdf (74.5KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Letter to reviewer.docx

    pone.0324335.s008.docx (38.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-31135_R1_DE_07112024.pdf

    pone.0324335.s009.pdf (4.7MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Letter.docx

    pone.0324335.s010.docx (32.1KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES