Evidence Hub

Responsiveness and the minimal clinically important difference of the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool (CPAx) in critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults: a study protocol for a prospective, multicentre, cohort study

Eggmann S, Paton M, Villinger C, Bradley S, Hellings T, Hills A, Venetz P, Broadley T et al.

BMJ open, 2025

120 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Introduction: The use of invasive life support in patients with a prolonged critical illness clearly saves lives but carries substantial risks, including intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICUAW) and long-term disability. Early mobilisation might improve outcomes, yet the evidence is conflicting and complicated by the lack of a responsive outcome measurement to detect change in critically ill patients' physical function and activity. The Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment tool (CPAx) is a valid and reliable instrument for patients at risk of ICUAW. However, its ability to measure change over time (responsiveness) and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) have not yet been rigorously investigated.

Methods and analysis: The primary objective of this prospective, international, multicentre, longitudinal cohort study is to investigate responsiveness and to establish the MCID of the CPAx during the 'intensive care unit (ICU) period', from ICU baseline to ICU discharge, and 'hospital period', from ICU to hospital discharge. Adults with any critical illness who are mechanically ventilated for at least 72 hours, expected to remain in ICU (≥48 hours) and being treated by a physiotherapist are eligible for study inclusion. Functional measurements, including the CPAx and a global rating of change (GRC) scale, will be collected during routine physiotherapy. Responsiveness will be evaluated primarily using the GRC as an anchor to distinguish changed from…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 120 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free