ArticlePloS one2021
Delirium researchers' perspectives of the challenges in delirium biomarker research: A qualitative study.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding the Unique Ethical Challenges in Randomized Controlled Trials of Delirium Interventions for Older Adults: A Rapid Review.Anesthesia and analgesia · 2026Review
- Evaluating a customised large language model (DELSTAR) and its ability to address medication-related questions associated with delirium: a quantitative exploratory study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the prevalence and impact of delirium, its pathophysiology remains unclear. In order to advance this field of research, robust scientific methodology is required, yet quality of reporting in this field of research has been highly inconsistent. Delirium biomarker research poses several challenges, none of which have been documented in the literature before. The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of delirium researchers about key methodological issues in delirium biomarker research.
methodsFollowing a Delphi study with delirium experts resulting in 60 recommendations for reporting delirium biomarker studies, semi-structured interviews with international delirium researchers were conducted. Interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim, followed by thematic analysis of the qualitative data.
resultsFifteen participants were interviewed between August and November 2019. Most were male (n = 12; 75%), clinician researchers (n = 13; 86%), and had more than ten years' experience in conducting delirium research (n = 9; 60%). Analysis revealed two major themes and ten sub-themes, outlining key considerations to advance the field of delirium biomarker research. The major themes were: 1) Practical and scientific challenges of delirium biomarker research: stagnation versus driving improved methods and reporting; and 2) Valuing delirium research through investment and collaboration.
conclusionFindings identified a range of factors that contribute to the practical and ethical challenges of conducting delirium biomarker research, which have not previously been explicitly acknowledged or reported. A clear vision for collaborative efforts to enhance research quality for improved impact was also presented by the delirium researchers. This work complements the preceding Delphi and together these studies provide an in-depth understanding of what is needed in the field to inform and improve methods and reporting of delirium biomarker research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.