Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30556827›Full record

ArticleJAMA internal medicine2019

Assessment of Instruments for Measurement of Delirium Severity: A Systematic Review.

Richard N Jones, Sevdenur Cizginer, Laura Pavlech, Asha Albuquerque, Lori A Daiello, Kumar Dharmarajan, Lauren J Gleason, Benjamin Helfand, Lauren Massimo, Esther Oh and 12 more

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA internal medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Comparison of DeltaScanLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Advancing specificity in delirium: The delirium subtyping initiative.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Richard N JonesDepartment of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Sevdenur CizginerDivision of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Department of Medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Laura PavlechHirsh Health Sciences Library, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Asha AlbuquerqueAging Brain Center, Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, Massachusetts.
Lori A DaielloDepartment of Neurology, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island.
Kumar DharmarajanCenter for Outcomes Research & Evaluation, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Lauren J GleasonSection of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Benjamin HelfandDepartment of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.
Lauren MassimoFrontotemporal Degeneration Center, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia.
Esther OhJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Olivia I OkerekeChanning Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Patricia TabloskiConnell School of Nursing, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts.
Laura A RabinDepartment of Psychology, Brooklyn College and the Graduate Center of City University of New York, Brooklyn, New York.
Jirong YueDepartment of Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Edward R MarcantonioDepartment of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Tamara G FongAging Brain Center, Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, Massachusetts.
Tammy T HshiehAging Brain Center, Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, Massachusetts.
Eran D MetzgerHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Kristen EricksonAging Brain Center, Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, Massachusetts.
Eva M SchmittAging Brain Center, Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, Massachusetts.
Sharon K InouyeAging Brain Center, Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, Massachusetts.
Better Assessment of Illness (BASIL) Study Group

Funding

The Role of Inflammation in the Pathophysiology of Delirium and its Associated Long-Term Cognitive DeclineP01AG031720 · NIA · HEBREW REHABILITATION CENTER FOR AGED · PI INOUYE, SHARON K. · 2010 to 2022
$26.7M
Development and Validation of a Delirium Severity ToolkitR01AG044518 · NIA · HEBREW REHABILITATION CENTER FOR AGED · PI INOUYE, SHARON K., JONES, RICHARD N · 2014 to 2024
$7.3M
Supplement to Network for Investigation of Delirium across the U.S (NIDUS)R24AG054259 · NIA · HEBREW REHABILITATION CENTER FOR AGED · PI INOUYE, SHARON K. · 2016 to 2020
$4.3M
Blood-Brain Barrier Disruption as a Biomarker for Perioperative Neurocognitive Disorder:Cognitive Recovery after Elective SurgeryR01AG058648 · NIA · RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL · PI DAIELLO, LORI A · 2019 to 2024
$4.2M
Mid-Career Mentoring Award for Patient-Oriented Research in AgingK24AG035075 · NIA · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI MARCANTONIO, EDWARD R · 2010 to 2021
$1.9M
Cognitive and Neural Moderators of Longitudinal Decline in Frontotemporal DegenerationR00AG056054 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI MASSIMO, LAUREN M · 2018 to 2020
$747k
K07 Leadership GrantK07AG041835 · NIA · HEBREW REHABILITATION CENTER FOR AGED · PI INOUYE, SHARON K. · 2013 to 2017
$656k
NIA NIH HHS K07 AG041835NIA NIH HHS K24 AG035075NIA NIH HHS P01 AG031720NIA NIH HHS R00 AG056054NIA NIH HHS R01 AG044518NIA NIH HHS R01 AG058648NIA NIH HHS R24 AG054259
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Measurement of delirium severity has been recognized as highly important for tracking prognosis, monitoring response to treatment, and estimating burden of care for patients both during and after hospitalization. Rather than simply rating delirium as present or absent, the ability to quantify its severity would enable development and monitoring of more effective treatment approaches for the condition. Objectives: To present a comprehensive review of delirium severity instruments, conduct a methodologic quality rating of the original validation study of the most commonly used instruments, and select a group of top-rated instruments. Evidence Review: This systematic review was conducted using literature from Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, from January 1, 1974, through March 31, 2017, with the key words delirium, severity, tests, measures, and intensity. Inclusion criteria were original articles assessing delirium severity and using a delirium-specific severity instrument. Final listings of articles were supplemented with hand searches of reference listings to ensure completeness. At least 2 reviewers independently completed each step of the review process: article selection, data extraction, and methodologic quality assessment of relevant articles using a validated rating scale. All discrepancies between raters were resolved by consensus. Findings: Of 9409 articles identified, 228 underwent full text review, and we identified 42 different instruments of delirium severity. Eleven of the 42 tools were multidomain, delirium-specific instruments providing a quantitative rating of delirium severity; these instruments underwent a methodologic quality review. Applying prespecified criteria related to frequency of use, methodologic quality, construct or predictive validity, and broad domain coverage, an expert panel used an iterative modified Delphi process to select 6 final high-quality instruments meeting these criteria: the Confusion Assessment Method-Severity Score, Confusional State Examination, Delirium-O-Meter, Delirium Observation Scale, Delirium Rating Scale, and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale. Conclusions and Relevance: The 6 instruments identified may enable accurate measurement of delirium severity to improve clinical care for patients with this condition. This work may stimulate increased usage and head-to-head comparison of these instruments.

Indexed as

DeliriumPercutaneous Coronary InterventionAngina, UnstableHumansOutpatients

Identifiers

PMID30556827
PMCPMC6382582

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.