Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33565046›Full record

ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2021

Development and validation of a delirium risk assessment tool in older patients admitted to the Emergency Department Observation Unit.

A Zucchelli, R Apuzzo, C Paolillo, V Prestipino, S De Bianchi, G Romanelli, A Padovani, A Marengoni, G Bellelli

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.1field-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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Risk factors and risk stratification approaches for delirium screening: A Geriatric Emergency Department Guidelines 2.0 systematic review.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Review
  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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

A ZucchelliDepartment of Information Engineering, University of Brescia, v. Branze, 38, 25123, Brescia, Italy. a.zucchelli001@unibs.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5992-8506
R ApuzzoSC Medicina Generale, Ospedale Sant'Andrea di Vercelli, ASL VC, Vercelli, Italy.
C PaolilloEmergency Department, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
V PrestipinoDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
S De BianchiEmergency Department, Desio Hospital, ASST Monza e Brianza, Desio, Italy.
G RomanelliDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Science, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
A PadovaniDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Science, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
A Marengoni *Department of Clinical and Experimental Science, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
G Bellelli *University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
University of Brescia · ITAzienda Ospedaliera San Gerardo · ITAzienda Ospedaliera Sant'Andrea · ITAzienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale degli Spedali Civili di Brescia · ITUniversity of Messina · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDelirium is frequent though undetected in older patients admitted to the Emergency Department (ED).

aimsTo develop and validate a delirium risk assessment tool for older persons admitted to the ED Observation Unit (OU).

methodsWe used data from two samples of 65 + year-old patients, one admitted to the ED of Brescia Hospital (n = 257) and one to the ED of Desio Hospital (n = 107), Italy. Data from Brescia were used as training sample, those collected in Desio as testing one. Delirium was assessed using the 4AT and patients' characteristic were retrieved from medical charts. Variables found to be associated with delirium in the training sample were tested for the creation of a delirium risk assessment tool. The resulting tool's performances were assessed in the testing subsample.

resultsOf all possible scores tested, the combination with the highest discriminative ability in the training sample included: age ≥ 75 years, dementia diagnosis, chronic use of neuroleptics, and hearing impairment. The delirium score exhibited an AUC of 0.874 and 0.893 in the training and testing samples, respectively. For a 1-point increase in the score, the odds of delirium increased more than twice in both samples. DISCUSSION: We propose a delirium risk assessing tool that includes variables that can be easily collected at ED admission and that can be calculated rapidly.

conclusionA risk assessment tool could help improving delirium detection in older persons referring to ED.

Indexed as

Clinical Observation UnitsDeliriumAgedAged, 80 and overEmergency Service, HospitalGeriatric AssessmentHumansProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentDeliriumEmergency departmentOlder personsPrediction score

Identifiers

PMID33565046
PMCPMC8531045
OpenAlexW3126277521

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.