Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32198728›Full record

ArticleNeurocritical care2020

Delirium Screening in Neurocritical Care and Stroke Unit Patients: A Pilot Study on the Influence of Neurological Deficits on CAM-ICU and ICDSC Outcome.

Judith von Hofen-Hohloch, Carolin Awissus, Marie Michèle Fischer, Dominik Michalski, Jost-Julian Rumpf, Joseph Classen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurocritical care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Clinical and intracranial electrophysiological signatures of post-operative and post-ictal delirium.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Judith von Hofen-HohlochNeurocritical Care and Stroke Unit, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Leipzig, Liebigstrasse 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. Judith.vonHofen-Hohloch@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7359-6421
Carolin AwissusNeurocritical Care and Stroke Unit, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Leipzig, Liebigstrasse 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Marie Michèle FischerNeurocritical Care and Stroke Unit, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Leipzig, Liebigstrasse 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Dominik MichalskiNeurocritical Care and Stroke Unit, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Leipzig, Liebigstrasse 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Jost-Julian RumpfNeurocritical Care and Stroke Unit, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Leipzig, Liebigstrasse 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Joseph ClassenNeurocritical Care and Stroke Unit, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Leipzig, Liebigstrasse 20, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
University Hospital Leipzig · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectiveDelirium is a common complication in critically ill patients with a negative impact on hospital length of stay, morbidity, and mortality. Little is known on how neurological deficits affect the outcome of commonly used delirium screening tools such as the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) in neurocritical care patients.

methodsOver a period of 1 month, all patients admitted to a neurocritical care and stroke unit at a single academic center were prospectively screened for delirium using both CAM-ICU and ICDSC. Tool-based delirium screening was compared with delirium evaluation by the treating clinical team. Additionally, ICD-10 delirium criteria were assessed.

resultsOne hundred twenty-three patients with a total of 644 daily screenings were included. Twenty-three patients (18.7%) were diagnosed with delirium according to the clinical evaluation. Delirium incidence amounted to 23.6% (CAM-ICU) and 26.8% (ICDSC). Sensitivity and specificity of both screening tools were 66.9% and 93.3% for CAM-ICU and 69.9% and 93.9% for ICDSC, respectively. Patients identified with delirium by either CAM-ICU or ICDSC presented a higher proportion of neurological deficits such as impaired consciousness, expressive aphasia, impaired language comprehension, and hemineglect. Subsequently, generalized estimating equations identified a significant association between impaired consciousness (as indexed by Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale) and a positive delirium assessment with both CAM-ICU and ICDSC, while impaired language comprehension and hemineglect were only associated with a positive CAM-ICU result.

conclusionsA positive delirium screening with both CAM-ICU and ICDSC in neurocritical care and stroke unit patients was found to be significantly associated with the presence of neurological deficits. These findings underline the need for a more specific delirium screening tool in neurocritical care patients.

Indexed as

DeliriumStrokeChecklistCritical CareFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMalePilot ProjectsPrognosisCAM-ICUDeliriumICDSCNeurocritical careStroke

Identifiers

PMID32198728
PMCPMC7736013
OpenAlexW3010855247

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.