ReviewMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2022
[Pitfalls in the diagnosis of delirium].
Review in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- [Delirium in stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2024Pooled it
- The Impact of Family Visits on Delirium in Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Which Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) instruments are currently used in Germany: a survey.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe diagnosis of delirium is challenging and requires precise definitions in both clinical routine and in studies.
aimTo point out various pitfalls in the clinical diagnosis of delirium and discuss solutions.
methodsReview.
resultsCommon problems include (a) clinical judgment of staff vs. the use of valid assessment tools, (b) different lists of criteria for delirium that may consider the symptoms of delirium differently and thus lead to inclusion or exclusion of patients, (c) different assessment tools that test the symptoms of delirium to different extents and thus have different accuracy, (d) patients with limited communication abilities, such as aphasia, where common tests often fail and alternative procedures may be more effective; (e) the decision whether to test delirium once, twice, three times, or more frequently in 24 h has consequences on the incidence and duration of delirium, (f) the end of delirium, often defined retrospectively as a delirium-free interval or prospectively as the time of transfer or occurrence of an exclusion criterion, can lead to considerable measurement inaccuracies.
conclusionsAlthough not all problems can be definitively answered, transparent definition, performance, and documentation of diagnostic procedures are recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34383103What 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.