ReviewMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2017
[Delirium in stroke patients : Critical analysis of statistical procedures for the identification of risk factors].
Review in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Delirium on stroke units: a prospective, multicentric quality-improvement project.Journal of neurology · 2022Article
- [Study protocol to improve the quality of delirium management in intensive care].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2020Review
- Prevalence for delirium in stroke patients: A prospective controlled study.Brain and behavior · 2017Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDelirium is a relevant complication following an acute stroke. It is a multifactor occurrence with numerous interacting risk factors that alternately influence each other. PROBLEM: The risk factors of delirium in stroke patients are often based on limited clinical studies. The statistical procedures and clinical relevance of delirium related risk factors in adult stroke patients should therefore be questioned.
methodThis secondary analysis includes clinically relevant studies that give evidence for the clinical relevance and statistical significance of delirium-associated risk factors in stroke patients. The quality of the reporting of regression analyses was assessed using Ottenbacher's quality criteria. The delirium-associated risk factors identified were examined with regard to statistical significance using the Bonferroni method of multiple testing for forming incorrect positive hypotheses. This was followed by a literature-based discussion on clinical relevance.
resultsNine clinical studies were included. None of the studies fulfilled all the prerequisites and assumptions given for the reporting of regression analyses according to Ottenbacher. Of the 108 delirium-associated risk factors, a total of 48 (44.4%) were significant, whereby a total of 28 (58.3%) were false positive after Bonferroni correction. Following a literature-based discussion on clinical relevance, the assumption of statistical significance and clinical relevance could be found for only four risk factors (dementia or cognitive impairment, total anterior infarct, severe infarct and infections).
conclusionsThe statistical procedures used in the existing literature are questionable, as are their results. A post-hoc analysis and critical appraisal reduced the number of possible delirium-associated risk factors to just a few clinically relevant factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.