Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28393426›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of geriatric psychiatry2018

The neuropsychology of delirium: advancing the science of delirium assessment.

Zoë Tieges, Jonathan J Evans, Karin J Neufeld, Alasdair M J MacLullich

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of geriatric psychiatry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04962815 (Ceribell Delirium Data Collection Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 30 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04962815 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Ceribell Delirium Data Collection Study

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorCeribell Inc.Ran2021 to 2026Enrolled200ConditionsDeliriumArmsElectroencephalogram (EEG) Test
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. The phenotype of delirium based on a close reading of diagnostic criteria.International journal of geriatric psychiatry · 2023
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Deconstructing delirium in the post anaesthesia care unit.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2022
    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

4 authors.

Zoë TiegesEdinburgh Delirium Research Group, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3820-3917
Jonathan J EvansInstitute of Health and Well Being, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Karin J NeufeldDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Alasdair M J MacLullichEdinburgh Delirium Research Group, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3159-9370

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilDepartment of Health 11/143/01Medical Research Council G108/646Medical Research Council MR/K026992/1Medical Research Council MR/L023210/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe diagnosis of delirium depends on eliciting its features through mental status examination and informant history. However, there is marked heterogeneity in how these features are assessed, from binary subjective clinical judgement to more comprehensive methods supported by cognitive testing. The aim of this article is to review the neuropsychological research in delirium and suggest future directions in research and clinical practice.

methodsWe reviewed the neuropsychological literature on formal assessment and quantification of the different domains in delirium, focusing on the core feature of inattention.

resultsFew studies have characterised and quantified the features of delirium using objective methods commonly employed in neuropsychological research. The existing evidence confirms that patients with delirium usually show impairments on objective tests of attention compared with cognitively intact controls and, in most cases, compared with patients with dementia. Further, abnormal level of arousal appears to be a specific indicator of delirium. The neuropsychological evidence base for impairments in other cognitive domains in delirium, including visual perception, language and thought processes, is small.

conclusionsDelirium diagnosis requires accurate testing for its features, but there is little neuropsychological research examining the nature of these features, or evaluating the reliability, validity and discriminatory power of existing assessment processes. More research using the neuropsychological approach has enormous potential to improve and standardise delirium assessment methods of the individual features of delirium, such as inattention, and in developing more robust reference standards to enable greater comparability between studies.

Indexed as

Neuropsychological TestsArousalAttentionDeliriumDementiaHumansMemoryReproducibility of ResultsThinkingVisual Perceptionarousalattentioncognitive testsdeliriumneuropsychological assessmentobjective measurement

Identifiers

PMID28393426
PMCPMC6704364

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.