Post-intensive care unit syndrome: trends and research foci in a bibliometric analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.8124.4928Keywords:
Bibliometrics; Critical Care; Practice Guideline; Quality of Life; Follow-Up Studies; Critical Care Nursing.Abstract
Objective: to identify the main areas of focus and trends in research on Post-Intensive Care Syndrome, with an emphasis on patient follow-up after discharge from the Intensive Care Unit. Method: search conducted on Web of Science from 2012 to November 2024. The Bibliometrix package and BiblioShiny platform in RStudio were used to explore keywords, trends and co-occurrences, journals, authors, co-citations, and collaboration networks. 120 articles on Post-Intensive Care Syndrome in adults were included. Results: the main keywords include critical illness, quality-of-life, and posttraumatic stress disorder. The most prolific authors are Needham D.M. and Sevin C.M., and the most relevant journals are Critical Care and BMJ Open. The United States leads in publications, followed by the Netherlands and Japan. Conclusion: most studies address a single component of the syndrome, and comparisons between studies are hampered by the diversity of assessment tools. Greater international collaboration, long-term studies, and randomized controlled clinical trials are needed.
Downloads
References
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
RLAE’s authorship concept is based on the substantial contribution by each of the individuals listed as authors, mainly in terms of conceiving and planning the research project, collecting or analyzing and interpreting data, writing and critical review. Indication of authors’ names under the article title is limited to six. If more, authors are listed on the online submission form under Acknowledgements. The possibility of including more than six authors will only be examined on multicenter studies, considering the explanations presented by the authors.Including names of authors whose contribution does not fit into the above criteria cannot be justified. Those names can be included in the Acknowledgements section.
Authors are fully responsible for the concepts disseminated in their manuscripts, which do not necessarily reflect the editors’ and editorial board’s opinion.