Fig 1.
Study flow chart through the systematic review. *Detailed search history can be found in S1 Table in S1 File.
Table 1.
Characteristics of included randomised clinical trials.
Fig 2.
Risk of bias assessment: Review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Fig 3.
Risk of bias graph: Review author’s judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Fig 4.
Comparison of early mobilisation versus standard care–mortality or poor functional outcome at the end of the intervention.
Fig 4A and 4B. Forest-plots showing the results from the fixed-effect meta-analysis of the primary composite outcome mortality or poor functional outcome at the end of intervention with subgroup divided according to risk of bias (A) or diagnosis (B).
Fig 5.
Comparison of early mobilisation versus standard care–mortality or poor functional outcome at maximal follow-up.
Fig 5A and 5B. Forest-plots showing the results from the fixed-effect meta-analysis of the primary composite outcome mortality or poor functional outcome at maximal follow-up with subgroup divided according to risk of bias (A) or diagnosis (B).
Table 2.
Results of trial sequential analysis of early mobilisation versus standard care.
Fig 6.
Comparison of early mobilisation versus standard care–mortality at the end of the intervention.
Fig 6A and 6B. Forest-plots showing the results from the fixed-effect meta-analysis of the outcome mortality at end of intervention with subgroup divided according to risk of bias (A) or diagnosis (B).
Fig 7.
Comparison of early mobilisation versus standard care–mortality at maximal follow-up.
Fig 7A and 7B. Forest-plots showing the results from the fixed-effect meta-analysis of the outcome mortality at maximal follow-up with subgroup divided according to risk of bias (A) or diagnosis (B).
Fig 8.
Comparison of early mobilisation versus standard care–Poor functional outcome among survivors at the end of the intervention.
Fig 8A and 8B. Forest-plots showing the results from the fixed-effect meta-analysis of the outcome poor function at the end of intervention with subgroup divided according to risk of bias (A) or diagnosis (B).
Fig 9.
Comparison of early mobilisation versus standard care–Poor functional outcome among survivors at maximal follow-up.
Figs 9A and 8B. Forest-plot showing the results from the fixed-effect meta-analysis of the outcome poor functional outcome at the longest follow-up with subgroup divided according to risk of bias (A) or diagnosis (B).
Fig 10.
Comparison of early mobilisation versus standard care–Quality of life at maximal follow-up.
Fig 10 A. Forest-plot showing the results from the fixed-effect meta-analysis of the outcome quality of life at maximal follow-up with subgroup divided according to risk of bias.
Fig 11.
Comparison of early mobilisation versus standard care–Serious adverse events at the end of the intervention.
Fig 11 A and B. Forest-plots showing the results from the fixed-effect meta-analysis of the outcome serious adverse events at the end of intervention with subgroup divided according to risk of bias (A) or diagnosis (B).
Fig 12.
Comparison of early mobilisation versus standard care–Serious adverse events at maximal follow-up.
Fig 12 A. Forest-plot showing the results from the fixed-effect meta-analysis of the outcome serious adverse events at the longest follow-up with subgroup divided according to low risk of bias or risk of bias.
Fig 13.
Comparison of early mobilisation versus standard care–Coma Recovery Scale-Revised at the end of the intervention.
Fig 13A and 13B. Forest-plot showing the results from the random-effects meta-analysis of the outcome Coma Recovery Scale-Revised at the end of intervention with subgroup divided according to risk of bias (A) or diagnosis (B).
Fig 14.
Comparison of early mobilisation versus standard care–Coma Recovery Scale-Revised at maximal follow-up.
Fig 14A and 14B. Forest-plot showing the results from the random-effects meta-analysis of the outcome Coma Recovery Scale-Revised at the longest follow-up with subgroup divided according to risk of bias (A) or diagnosis (B).
Fig 15.
Comparison of early mobilisation versus standard care–Adverse events not considered serious at the end of the intervention.
Fig 15A and 15B. Forest-plot showing the results from the fixed-effect meta-analysis of the outcome adverse events not considered serious at the end of intervention with subgroup divided according to risk of bias (A) or diagnosis (B).
Fig 16.
Comparison of early mobilisation versus standard care–Adverse events not considered serious at maximal follow-up.
Fig 16A. Forest-plot showing the results from the fixed-effect meta-analysis of the outcome adverse events not considered serious at the maximal follow-up with subgroup divided according to risk of bias.
Table 3.
Summary of findings for early mobilisation versus delayed mobilisation.