Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27816908›Full record

Observational studyAge and ageing2017

Delirium risk stratification in consecutive unselected admissions to acute medicine: validation of a susceptibility score based on factors identified externally in pooled data for use at entry to the acute care pathway.

Sarah T Pendlebury, Nicola G Lovett, Sarah C Smith, Rose Wharton, Peter M Rothwell

Open access · bronzeAbstract readObservational StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Age and ageing, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah T PendleburyNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, The University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nicola G LovettDepartments of General (Internal) Medicine and Geratology, John Radcliffe Hospital, The University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sarah C SmithDepartments of General (Internal) Medicine and Geratology, John Radcliffe Hospital, The University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Rose WhartonStroke Prevention Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, The University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Peter M RothwellNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, The University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
John Radcliffe Hospital · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 095626
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: recognition of prevalent delirium and prediction of incident delirium may be difficult at first assessment. We therefore aimed to validate a pragmatic delirium susceptibility (for any, prevalent and incident delirium) score for use in front-line clinical practice in a consecutive cohort of older acute medicine patients. Methods: consecutive patients aged ≥65 years over two 8-week periods (2010-12) were screened prospectively for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), and delirium was diagnosed using the DSM IV criteria. The delirium susceptibility score was the sum of weighted risk factors derived using pooled data from UK-NICE guidelines: age >80 = 2, cognitive impairment (cognitive score below cut-off/dementia) = 2, severe illness (systemic inflammatory response syndrome) = 1, infection = 1, visual impairment = 1. Score reliability was determined by the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). Results: among 308 consecutive patients aged ≥65 years (mean age/SD = 81/8 years, 164 (54%) female), AUC was 0.78 (95% CI 0.71-0.84) for any delirium; 0.71 (0.64-0.79), for prevalent delirium; 0.81 (0.70-0.92), for incident delirium; odds ratios (ORs) for risk score 5-7 versus <2 were 17.9 (5.4-60.0), P < 0.0001 for any delirium, 8.1 (2.2-29.7), P = 0.002 for prevalent delirium, and 25.0 (3.0-208.9) P = 0.003 for incident delirium, with corresponding relative risks of 5.4, 4.7 and 13. Higher risk scores were associated with frailty markers, increased care needs and poor outcomes. Conclusions: the externally derived delirium susceptibility score reliably identified prevalent and incident delirium using clinical data routinely available at initial patient assessment and might therefore aid recognition of vulnerability in acute medical admissions early in the acute care pathway.

Indexed as

Critical PathwaysMental Status and Dementia TestsPatient AdmissionAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsArea Under CurveDeliriumFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHumansIncidenceMaleMedical AuditOdds RatioPredictive Value of Testsacute medicinedeliriumexternal validationolder peoplepredictionrisk score

Identifiers

PMID27816908
PMCPMC5386005
OpenAlexW2548602912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.