Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30704024›Full record

ReviewDiseases (Basel, Switzerland)2019

Delirium Assessment in Older People in Emergency Departments. A Literature Review.

Pilar Pérez-Ros, Francisco Miguel Martínez-Arnau

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Treatment of Delirium in Older Persons: What We Should Not Do!International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Review
  11. Neuro-Psychiatric Disorders: From Diagnosis to Care.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019
    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

2 authors.

Pilar Pérez-RosSchool of Nursing, Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir, Calle Espartero, 7, 46007 València, Spain. pilar.perez@ucv.es.ORCID 0000-0002-2118-9792
Francisco Miguel Martínez-ArnauDepartment of Physiotheray, Universitat de València, C/Gascó Oliag 5, 46010 València, Spain. francisco.m.martinez@uv.es.ORCID 0000-0003-1949-3290

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Delirium is a neuropsychiatric syndrome often manifesting in acute disease conditions, and with a greater prevalence in the older generation. Delirium in the Emergency Department (ED) is a highly prevalent problem that typically goes unnoticed by healthcare providers. The onset of a delirium episode in the ED is associated with an increase in morbidity and mortality. Because delirium is a preventable syndrome, these statistics are unacceptable. Emergency Department staff therefore should strive to perform systematic screening in order to detect delirium. Different tools have been developed for the assessment of delirium by healthcare professionals other than psychiatrists or geriatricians. Emergency Departments require delirium assessment scales of high sensitivity and specificity, suited to the characteristics of the Department, since the time available is scarce. In addition, the presence of dementia in the assessment of delirium may induce sensitivity bias. Despite the existence of numerous delirium rating scales, scales taking less than three minutes to complete are recommended. The choice of the tool depends on the characteristics of the ED. The only scale affording high sensitivity and specificity in older people with and without dementia is the Four "A"s Test (4AT); it requires no training on the part of the rater, and can be performed in under two minutes.

Indexed as

deliriumdiagnosisemergency departmentsmental healthmultidisciplinary approachpsychiatric disorder

Identifiers

PMID30704024
PMCPMC6473718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.