biostudies-literatureUnknown27(1)Nakanishi N<h4>Background</h4>The assessment of post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) is challenging due to the numerous types of instruments. We herein attempted to identify and propose recommendations for instruments to assess PICS in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a scoping review to identify PICS follow-up studies at and after hospital discharge between 2014 and 2022. Assessment instruments used more than two times were included in the modified Delphi consensus process. A modified Delphi meeting was conducted three times by the PICS committee of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine, and each score was rated as not important (score: 1-3), important, but not critical (4-6), and critical (7-9). We included instruments with ≥ 70% of respondents rating criticCritical care (London, England)430https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC10629074biostudies-literatureInstruments to assess post-intensive care syndrome assessment: a scoping review and modified Delphi method study.PMC10629074Liu KHaruna JMorisawa TNosaka NUtsumi SKatayama STakaki SSumita HMasuda MKawauchi AKawai YYoshihiro STakahashi MTanaka KUnoki TKozu RInoue STaito SNishikimi MNakamura KOta KFudeyasu KMiyamoto KHatakeyama JKawakami DNakanishi NMasuka YObata KKatsukawa HFujinami YKondo YHifumi TNishida OOkamura MMitani YTsuboi NIida YfalseInstruments to assess post-intensive care syndrome assessment: a scoping review and modified Delphi method study.<h4>Background</h4>The assessment of post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) is challenging due to the numerous types of instruments. We herein attempted to identify and propose recommendations for instruments to assess PICS in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a scoping review to identify PICS follow-up studies at and after hospital discharge between 2014 and 2022. Assessment instruments used more than two times were included in the modified Delphi consensus process. A modified Delphi meeting was conducted three times by the PICS committee of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine, and each score was rated as not important (score: 1-3), important, but not critical (4-6), and critical (7-9). We included instruments with ≥ 70% of respondents rating critic2023-01-01T00:00:00Z2023 Nov2026-06-03T12:16:27.158Z2025-04-20T01:01:43.916ZS-EPMC106290743793624910.1186/s13054-023-04681-6