Progressive multimodal rehabilitation program

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

Despite numerically greater improvements in handgrip strength, gait speed, and 6-minute walk distance in the MRP+UC group compared to usual care, none of these between-group differences in functional

Effect: null; handgrip change 3.6 vs 1.3 kg (p=0.20); gait speed change 0.13 vs 0.07 m/s (p=0.41); 6MWD change 40.6 vs 19.9 ft (p=0.33); SPPB change 1.1 vs 1.

The addition of a progressive multimodal rehabilitation program to usual care physical therapy significantly improved ventilator weaning success in ICU survivors with acquired weakness, with 87% of th

Effect: improvement; 87% vs. 41%

The addition of a progressive multimodal rehabilitation program to usual care physical therapy significantly improved ventilator weaning success in ICU survivors with acquired weakness, with 87% of th

Effect: improvement; 87% vs. 41%

The addition of a progressive multimodal rehabilitation program to usual care physical therapy significantly improved ventilator weaning success in ICU survivors with acquired weakness, with 87% of th

Effect: improvement; 87% vs. 41%

The addition of a progressive multimodal rehabilitation program to usual care physical therapy significantly improved ventilator weaning success in ICU survivors with acquired weakness, with 87% of th

Effect: improvement; 87% vs. 41%

The addition of a progressive multimodal rehabilitation program to usual care physical therapy significantly improved ventilator weaning success in ICU survivors with acquired weakness, with 87% of th

Effect: improvement; 87% vs. 41%

The addition of a progressive multimodal rehabilitation program to usual care physical therapy significantly improved ventilator weaning success in ICU survivors with acquired weakness, with 87% of th

Effect: improvement; 87% vs. 41%

The addition of a progressive multimodal rehabilitation program to usual care physical therapy significantly improved ventilator weaning success in ICU survivors with acquired weakness, with 87% of th

Effect: improvement; 87% vs. 41%

The addition of a progressive multimodal rehabilitation program to usual care physical therapy significantly improved ventilator weaning success in ICU survivors with acquired weakness, with 87% of th

Effect: improvement; 87% vs. 41%

The addition of a progressive multimodal rehabilitation program to usual care physical therapy significantly improved ventilator weaning success in ICU survivors with acquired weakness, with 87% of th

Effect: improvement; 87% vs. 41%

The addition of a progressive multimodal rehabilitation program to usual care physical therapy significantly improved ventilator weaning success in ICU survivors with acquired weakness, with 87% of th

Effect: improvement; 87% vs. 41%

The addition of a progressive multimodal rehabilitation program to usual care physical therapy significantly improved ventilator weaning success in ICU survivors with acquired weakness, with 87% of th

Effect: improvement; 87% vs. 41%

The addition of a progressive multimodal rehabilitation program to usual care physical therapy significantly improved ventilator weaning success in ICU survivors with acquired weakness, with 87% of th

Effect: improvement; 87% vs. 41%

The addition of a progressive multimodal rehabilitation program to usual care physical therapy significantly improved ventilator weaning success in ICU survivors with acquired weakness, with 87% of th

Effect: improvement; 87% vs. 41%

The addition of a progressive multimodal rehabilitation program to usual care physical therapy significantly improved ventilator weaning success in ICU survivors with acquired weakness, with 87% of th

Effect: improvement; 87% vs. 41%

The addition of a progressive multimodal rehabilitation program to usual care physical therapy significantly improved ventilator weaning success in ICU survivors with acquired weakness, with 87% of th

Effect: improvement; 87% vs. 41%

The addition of a progressive multimodal rehabilitation program to usual care physical therapy significantly improved ventilator weaning success in ICU survivors with acquired weakness, with 87% of th

Effect: improvement; 87% vs. 41%

The addition of a progressive multimodal rehabilitation program to usual care physical therapy significantly improved ventilator weaning success in ICU survivors with acquired weakness, with 87% of th

Effect: improvement; 87% vs. 41%

The addition of a progressive multimodal rehabilitation program to usual care physical therapy significantly improved ventilator weaning success in ICU survivors with acquired weakness, with 87% of th

Effect: improvement; 87% vs. 41%

The addition of a progressive multimodal rehabilitation program to usual care physical therapy significantly improved ventilator weaning success in ICU survivors with acquired weakness, with 87% of th

Effect: improvement; 87% vs. 41%

The addition of a progressive multimodal rehabilitation program to usual care physical therapy significantly improved ventilator weaning success in ICU survivors with acquired weakness, with 87% of th

Effect: improvement; 87% vs. 41%

The addition of a progressive multimodal rehabilitation program to usual care physical therapy significantly improved ventilator weaning success in ICU survivors with acquired weakness, with 87% of th

Effect: improvement; 87% vs. 41%

The addition of a progressive multimodal rehabilitation program to usual care physical therapy significantly improved ventilator weaning success in ICU survivors with acquired weakness, with 87% of th

Effect: improvement; 87% vs. 41%

The addition of a progressive multimodal rehabilitation program to usual care physical therapy significantly improved ventilator weaning success in ICU survivors with acquired weakness, with 87% of th

Effect: improvement; 87% vs. 41%