Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29290048›Full record

ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2018

Screening and detection of delirium in older ED patients: performance of the modified Confusion Assessment Method for the Emergency Department (mCAM-ED). A two-step tool.

Wolfgang Hasemann, Florian F Grossmann, Rahel Stadler, Roland Bingisser, Dieter Breil, Martina Hafner, Reto W Kressig, Christian H Nickel

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Comparison of delirium detection tools in acute care : A rapid review.Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Wolfgang HasemannDepartment of Nursing and Allied Health Professions, University Hospital Basel, Hebelstrasse 2, Basel, 4031, Switzerland. wolfgang.hasemann@usb.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2417-3785
Florian F GrossmannEmergency Department, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Rahel StadlerEmergency Department, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Roland BingisserEmergency Department, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Dieter BreilUniversity Center for Medicine of Aging, Felix Platter Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Martina HafnerUniversity Center for Medicine of Aging, Felix Platter Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Reto W KressigUniversity Center for Medicine of Aging, Felix Platter Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Christian H NickelEmergency Department, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
University Hospital of Basel · CHFelix Platter-Hospital · CHUniversity of Basel · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Delirium is frequent in older Emergency Department (ED) patients, but detection rates for delirium in the ED are low. To aid in identifying delirium, we developed and implemented a two-step systematic delirium screening and assessment tool in our ED: the modified Confusion Assessment Method for the Emergency Department (mCAM-ED). Components of the mCAM-ED include: (1) screening for inattention, the main feature of delirium, which was performed with the Months Backwards Test (MBT); (2) delirium assessment based on a structured interview with questions from the Mental Status Questionnaire by Kahn et al. and the Comprehension Test by Hart et al. The aims of our study are (1) to investigate the performance criteria of the mCAM-ED tool in a consecutive sample of older ED patients, (2) to evaluate the performance of the mCAM-ED in patients with and without dementia and (3) to test whether this tool is efficient in keeping evaluation time to a minimum and reducing screening and assessment burden on the patient. For this prospective validation study, we recruited a consecutive sample of ED patients aged 65 and older during an 11-day period in November 2015. Trained nurses assessed patients with the mCAM-ED. Results were compared to the reference standard [i.e. the geriatricians' delirium diagnosis based on the criteria of the Text Revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR)]. Performance criteria were computed. We included 286 consecutive ED patients aged 65 and older. The median age was 80.02 (Q

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesAgedAged, 80 and overDeliriumEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHumansMaleMass ScreeningPrevalenceReproducibility of ResultsSeverity of Illness IndexSwitzerlandAlgorithmsAttentionDeliriumDementiaEmergency medicinePerformancePrevalence

Identifiers

PMID29290048
OpenAlexW2778347403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.