Evidence Hub

Individualised treatment effects of enhanced early mobilisation in mechanically ventilated patients: a secondary analysis of the TEAM trial

Carol L. Hodgson, Alexandra B. Spicer, Tessa Broadley, Michael Bailey, R. Bellomo, Kathy Brickell, H. Buhr, Belinda J. Gabbe et al.

Intensive Care Medicine, 2025

687 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

Benefit or harm from early mobilisation (EM) in mechanically ventilated patients may vary by individual patient characteristics. We used machine learning to predict individualised treatment effects (ITEs) in the “Early Active Mobilization during Mechanical Ventilation in the ICU” (TEAM) trial. This was a secondary analysis of the TEAM trial using a causal inference approach to estimate ITEs, which compared enhanced EM to usual care EM. Baseline variables in the original publication were used as predictor variables. The primary outcome was death by day 180. The dataset was randomly split into two halves (train and test) by site. In the training data, fivefold cross-validation was used to compare six candidate machine learning algorithms. The best-performing model was evaluated in the test dataset. Patients were stratified into tertiles based on predicted ITEs, reflecting estimated benefit, no effect or harm. We included 687 patients from 40 sites, and 141 (20.5%) patients died by day 180. Predicted ITEs in the test cohort ranged from an absolute 34.0% reduction to a 39.3% increase in mortality with enhanced EM. The interaction term between the model predictions and treatment assignment demonstrated significant heterogeneity of treatment effect (p = 0.006). Patients predicted to respond poorly to enhanced EM therapy were more likely to receive vasopressors, have diabetes and have lower RASS scores at baseline, compared to patients predicted to have benefit. Using baseline…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, 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: 687 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