Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28928181›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Development of core outcome sets for effectiveness trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium (Del-COrS): study protocol.

Louise Rose, Meera Agar, Lisa D Burry, Noll Campbell, Mike Clarke, Jacques Lee, Najma Siddiqi, Valerie J Page, Del-COrS group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 12 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.

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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Interventions for preventing intensive care unit delirium in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  12. Antipsychotics for treatment of delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Advancing specificity in delirium: The delirium subtyping initiative.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

9 authors.

Louise RoseDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Meera AgarFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Technology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Lisa D BurryLeslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Noll CampbellCollege of Pharmacy, Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Mike ClarkeSchool of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Jacques LeeSunnybrook Research Institute, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Najma SiddiqiSchool of Medicine, York University, York, UK.
Valerie J PageDepartment of Anaesthetics, Watford General Hospital, Watford, UK.
Del-COrS group

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0610-22068Medical Research Council G0901530
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDelirium is a common, serious and potentially preventable condition with devastating impact on the quality of life prompting a proliferation of interventional trials. Core outcome sets aim to standardise outcome reporting by identifying outcomes perceived fundamental for measurement in trials of a specific interest area. Our aim is to develop international consensus on two core outcome sets for trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium, irrespective of study population. We aim to identify additional core outcomes specific to the critically ill, acutely hospitalised patients, palliative care and older adults. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review of published and ongoing delirium trials (1980 onwards) and one-on-one interviews of patients who have experienced delirium and family members. These data will inform Delphi round 1 of a two-stage consensus process. In round 2, we will provide participants their own response, summarised group responses and those of patient/family participants for rescoring. We will randomise participants to receive feedback as proportion scoring the outcome as critical or as group mean responses. We will hold a consensus meeting using nominal group technique to finalise outcomes for inclusion. We will repeat the Delphi process and consensus meeting to select measures for each core outcome. We will recruit 240 Delphi participants giving us 80% power to detect a 1.0-1.5 point (9-point scale) difference by feedback method between rounds. We will analyse differences for subsequent scores, magnitude of opinion change, items retained and level of agreement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We are obtaining research ethics approvals according to local governance. Participation will be voluntary and data deidentified. Support from three international delirium organisations will be instrumental in dissemination and core outcome set uptake. We will disseminate through peer-reviewed open access publications and present at conferences selected to reach a wide range of knowledge users.

Indexed as

ConsensusPatient Outcome AssessmentConsensus Statements as TopicCritical CareDeliriumDelphi TechniqueFeedbackHospitalizationHumansPalliative CareRandom AllocationResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as Topiccore outcome setdeliriumresearch methodssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28928181
PMCPMC5623471

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.