Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32332281›Full record

ArticleCritical care medicine2020

Partnering With Family Members to Detect Delirium in Critically Ill Patients.

Kirsten M Fiest, Karla D Krewulak, E Wesley Ely, Judy E Davidson, Zahinoor Ismail, Bonnie G Sept, Henry T Stelfox

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Critical Care Pain Observation Tool for Families (CPOT-Fam).Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Best Practices in Oral Care.Critical care nurse · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Kirsten M Fiest
Karla D KrewulakDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Alberta Health Services & University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
E Wesley ElyTennessee Valley Veteran's Affairs Geriatric Research Education Clinical Center (VA GRECC), Critical Illness, Brain Dysfunction, and Survivorship (CIBS) Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
Judy E DavidsonDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA.
Zahinoor IsmailDepartment of Community Health Sciences & O'Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Bonnie G SeptDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Alberta Health Services & University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Henry T StelfoxDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Alberta Health Services & University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Alberta Health Services · CAAllen Institute for Brain Science · USUniversity of California, San Diego · US

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of family-administered tools to detect delirium in critically ill patients.

designDiagnostic accuracy study.

settingLarge, tertiary care academic hospital in a single-payer health system. PATIENTS: Consecutive, eligible patients with at least one family member present (dyads) and a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale greater than or equal to -3, no primary direct brain injury, the ability to provide informed consent (both patient and family member), the ability to communicate with research staff, and anticipated to remain admitted in the ICU for at least a further 24 hours to complete all assessments at least once.

interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsFamily-administered delirium assessments (Family Confusion Assessment Method and Sour Seven) were completed once daily. A board-certified neuropsychiatrist and team of ICU research nurses conducted the reference standard assessments of delirium (based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, criteria) once daily for a maximum of 5 days. The mean age of the 147 included patients was 56.1 years (SD, 16.2 yr), 61% of whom were male. Family members (n = 147) were most commonly spouses (n = 71, 48.3%) of patients. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve on the Family Confusion Assessment Method was 65.0% (95% CI, 60.0-70.0%), 71.0% (95% CI, 66.0-76.0%) for possible delirium (cutpoint of 4) on the Sour Seven and 67.0% (95% CI, 62.0-72.0%) for delirium (cutpoint of 9) on the Sour Seven. These area under the receiver operating characteristic curves were lower than the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (standard of care) and Confusion Assessment Method for ICU. Combining the Family Confusion Assessment Method or Sour Seven with the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist or Confusion Assessment Method for ICU resulted in area under the receiver operating characteristic curves that were not significantly better, or worse for some combinations, than the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist or Confusion Assessment Method for ICU alone. Adding the Family Confusion Assessment Method and Sour Seven to the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist and Confusion Assessment Method for ICU improved sensitivity at the expense of specificity.

conclusionsFamily-administered delirium detection is feasible and has fair, but lower diagnostic accuracy than clinical assessments using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist and Confusion Assessment Method for ICU. Family proxy assessments are essential for determining baseline cognitive function. Engaging and empowering families of critically ill patients warrant further study.

Indexed as

FamilyCritical IllnessDeliriumFemaleHumansReference Standards

Identifiers

PMID32332281
OpenAlexW3018469342

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.