Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29728150›Full record

Trial reportCritical care (London, England)2018

Delirium prediction in the intensive care unit: comparison of two delirium prediction models.

Annelies Wassenaar, Lisette Schoonhoven, John W Devlin, Frank M P van Haren, Arjen J C Slooter, Philippe G Jorens, Mathieu van der Jagt, Koen S Simons, Ingrid Egerod, Lisa D Burry and 5 more

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Critical care (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

NCT02518646 completednot on this map

DElirium prediCtIon in the intenSIve Care Unit: Head to Head comparisON of Two Delirium Prediction Models

TypeobservationalSponsorRadboud University Medical CenterRan2015 to 2016Enrolled2,500ConditionsDelirium
NCT06187792 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Constructing a Model of Pupillary Parameters in Predicting Delirium Among Critically Ill Patients in the Intensive Unit

TypeobservationalSponsorNational Taiwan University HospitalRan2023 to 2025Enrolled200ConditionsICU Delirium
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  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. Delirium in Intensive Care.Current anesthesiology reports · 2021
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

15 authors at 11 institutions in 8 countries.

Annelies WassenaarDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud university medical center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Lisette SchoonhovenFaculty of Health Sciences and National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (Wessex), University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
John W DevlinSchool of Pharmacy, Northeastern University, Boston, USA.
Frank M P van HarenIntensive Care Unit, The Canberra Hospital, Canberra, Australia.
Arjen J C SlooterDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine and Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Philippe G JorensDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Antwerp University Hospital, University of Antwerp, Edegem, Antwerp, Belgium.
Mathieu van der JagtDepartment of Intensive Care, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Koen S SimonsDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Jeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands.
Ingrid EgerodIntensive Care Unit, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lisa D BurryLeslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Albertus BeishuizenDepartment of Intensive Care, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.
Joaquim MatosDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Hospital Espírito Santo, Evora, Portugal.
A Rogier T DondersDepartment for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Peter PickkersDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud university medical center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Mark van den BoogaardDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud university medical center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Mark.vandenBoogaard@radboudumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4233-2903
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLAustralian National University · AUErasmus MC · NLHospital do Espírito Santo · PTJeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis · NLMedisch Spectrum Twente · NLMount Sinai Hospital · CATufts Medical Center · USUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLUniversity of Antwerp · BEUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate prediction of delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU) may facilitate efficient use of early preventive strategies and stratification of ICU patients by delirium risk in clinical research, but the optimal delirium prediction model to use is unclear. We compared the predictive performance and user convenience of the prediction  model for delirium (PRE-DELIRIC) and early prediction model for delirium (E-PRE-DELIRIC) in ICU patients and determined the value of a two-stage calculation.

methodsThis 7-country, 11-hospital, prospective cohort study evaluated consecutive adults admitted to the ICU who could be reliably assessed for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. The predictive performance of the models was measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Calibration was assessed graphically. A physician questionnaire evaluated user convenience. For the two-stage calculation we used E-PRE-DELIRIC immediately after ICU admission and updated the prediction using PRE-DELIRIC after 24 h.

resultsIn total 2178 patients were included. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was significantly greater for PRE-DELIRIC (0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.71-0.76)) compared to E-PRE-DELIRIC (0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.66-0.71)) (z score of - 2.73 (p < 0.01)). Both models were well-calibrated. The sensitivity improved when using the two-stage calculation in low-risk patients. Compared to PRE-DELIRIC, ICU physicians (n = 68) rated the E-PRE-DELIRIC model more feasible.

conclusionsWhile both ICU delirium prediction models have moderate-to-good performance, the PRE-DELIRIC model predicts delirium better. However, ICU physicians rated the user convenience of E-PRE-DELIRIC superior to PRE-DELIRIC. In low-risk patients the delirium prediction further improves after an update with the PRE-DELIRIC model after 24 h.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02518646 . Registered on 21 July 2015.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesAdultAgedAPACHEArea Under CurveAustraliaBelgiumCanadaCohort StudiesDeliriumDenmarkFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedAdultClinical predictionCritical illnessDeliriumIntensive care unit

Identifiers

PMID29728150
PMCPMC5935943
OpenAlexW2801913203

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.