Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31791260›Full record

SynthesisBMC neurology2019

Detecting delirium in patients with acute stroke: a systematic review of test accuracy.

Irene Mansutti, Luisa Saiani, Alvisa Palese

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC neurology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Diagnostic Test Accuracy of the 4AT for Delirium Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Risk-predicting and screening tools of post-stroke delirium: a narrative review.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. [Recent clinical studies and the S3 guidelines on stroke].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Irene MansuttiDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Luisa SaianiDepartment of Diagnostics and Public Health, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Alvisa PaleseDepartment of Medical Science, University of Udine, Viale Ungheria 20, 33100, Udine, Italy. alvisa.palese@uniud.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3508-844X
University of Rome Tor Vergata · ITUniversity of Udine · ITUniversity of Verona · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with acute stroke are particularly vulnerable to delirium episodes. Although delirium detection is important, no evidence-based recommendations have been established to date on how these patients should be routinely screened for delirium or which tool should be used for this purpose in this population. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify delirium screening tools for patients with acute stroke and to summarise their accuracy.

methodsFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic search of Medline, CINAHL and Scopus databases was performed to include: (a) diagnostic test accuracy studies; (b) evaluating tools detecting delirium among patients with acute stroke; (c) written in English; (d) published up to September 2018. The included studies were assessed in their quality by using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2.

resultsA total of four studies have been performed to date in the field with a variable quality for the methodology used and documentation of the accuracy of mainly two tools, as (1) the 4-Assessment Test for delirium (4AT), reporting a range of sensitivity from 90.2 to 100% and a specificity from 64.5 to 86%; and (2) the Confusion Assessment Method-Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) showing a sensitivity of 76% (95% Confidence of Interval [CI] 55-91) and a specificity of 98% (95%CI 93-100). Other tools have been studied as: The Abbreviated Mental Test-10, the Abbreviated Mental Test short form, the Clock Drawing Test, the Cognitive Examination derived from the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and the Glasgow Coma Scale. Moreover, the use of a single question-namely, 'Does this patient have cognitive issues?' as answered by the multidisciplinary team-has been subjected to a validation process.

conclusionsTo date a few primary studies have been published to test the accuracy of tools in their ability to detect post-stroke delirium; among those available, the 4AT and the CAM-ICU tools have been mostly studied. Research has just started to add evidence to the challenge of detecting and usefully assessing newly-acquired delirium among stroke patients: therefore, more studies are needed to improve the knowledge and allow a robust selection of the most useful tool to use in this population.

Indexed as

DeliriumDiagnostic Tests, RoutineGlasgow Coma ScaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMass ScreeningNeuropsychological TestsSensitivity and SpecificityStrokeInstrumentsIntracerebral HaemorrhageIschaemic strokePost-stroke deliriumSensitivitySpecificitySystematic reviewTools

Identifiers

PMID31791260
PMCPMC6889202
OpenAlexW2990823784

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.