Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33354672›Full record

ArticleCritical care explorations2020

ICU Delirium-Prediction Models: A Systematic Review.

Matthew M Ruppert, Jessica Lipori, Sandip Patel, Elizabeth Ingersent, Julie Cupka, Tezcan Ozrazgat-Baslanti, Tyler Loftus, Parisa Rashidi, Azra Bihorac

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care explorations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Observational
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

9 authors.

Matthew M RuppertDepartment of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Jessica LiporiDepartment of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Sandip PatelDepartment of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Elizabeth IngersentDepartment of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Julie CupkaDepartment of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Tezcan Ozrazgat-BaslantiDepartment of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Tyler LoftusPrecision and Intelligent Systems in Medicine (Prisma), Division of Nephrology, Hypertension, & Renal Transplantation, Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Parisa RashidiPrecision and Intelligent Systems in Medicine (Prisma), Division of Nephrology, Hypertension, & Renal Transplantation, Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Azra BihoracDepartment of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Funding

PICS: A New Horizon for Surgical Critical CareP50GM111152 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI MOLDAWER, LYLE L · 2014 to 2018
$10.7M
Integrating data, algorithms and clinical reasoning for surgical risk assessmentR01GM110240 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI BIHORAC, AZRA, RASHIDI, PARISA · 2016 to 2025
$5.1M
Molecular Biology in Burns and TraumaT32GM008721 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI Philip A Efron · 1999 to 2026
$5.0M
Aligning Patient Acuity with Intensity of Care after SurgeryK23GM140268 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI LOFTUS, TYLER J · 2020 to 2023
$619k
Autonomous Pain Recognition in Non-Verbal and Critically Ill PatientsR21EB027344 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI RASHIDI, PARISA · 2019 to 2022
$577k
NIBIB NIH HHS R21 EB027344NIGMS NIH HHS K23 GM140268NIGMS NIH HHS P50 GM111152NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM110240NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM008721
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveSummarize performance and development of ICU delirium-prediction models published within the past 5 years. DATA SOURCES: Systematic electronic searches were conducted in April 2019 using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature to identify peer-reviewed studies. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies were published in English during the past 5 years that specifically addressed the development, validation, or recalibration of delirium-prediction models in adult ICU populations. DATA EXTRACTION: Screened citations were extracted independently by three investigators with a 42% overlap to verify consistency using the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eighteen studies featuring 23 distinct prediction models were included. Model performance varied greatly, as assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.62-0.94), specificity (0.50-0.97), and sensitivity (0.45-0.96). Most models used data collected from a single time point or window to predict the occurrence of delirium at any point during hospital or ICU admission, and lacked mechanisms for providing pragmatic, actionable predictions to clinicians.

conclusionsAlthough most ICU delirium-prediction models have relatively good performance, they have limited applicability to clinical practice. Most models were static, making predictions based on data collected at a single time-point, failing to account for fluctuating conditions during ICU admission. Further research is needed to create clinically relevant dynamic delirium-prediction models that can adapt to changes in individual patient physiology over time and deliver actionable predictions to clinicians.

Indexed as

deliriumintensive care unitprediction modelrisk predictionsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33354672
PMCPMC7746201

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.