Observational studyMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2022
[Disorientation and delirium assessment : A secondary analysis of a prospective, observational study].
Observational study 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment and report of individual symptoms in studies of delirium in postoperative populations: a systematic review.Age and ageing · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of DeltaScanLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Disorientation as a delirium feature in non-intubated patients: development and evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of the 'Confusion Assessment Method for Intermediate Care Unit' (CAM-IMC) - a prospective cohort study.BMC anesthesiology · 2024Article
- [Delirium-assessment, prevention and treatment : Task in the interprofessional intensive care unit team].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Disorientation may present as a warning sign of developing delirium. The most commonly used delirium assessment tool in Germany, the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU), does not rate "disorientation", since intubated patients cannot communicate verbally. However, the majority of German ICU patients are not orally intubated, so they could be examined for their orientation. This study was carried out to investigate whether the delirium feature "disorientation" in extubated patients yields diverging findings in comparison to the CAM-ICU and whether the sensitivity of the CAM-ICU may be improved when combined with the feature "disorientation" (CAM-IMC). A total of 86 paired assessments were completed in 50 extubated patients. Delirium was found in 19.8% (N = 17). The CAM-ICU had a sensitivity of 71% (95% confidence interval [CI] 44-90%) and a specificity of 100% (95-100%). Disorientation, if taken as the only delirium feature, had a sensitivity of 77% (50-93%) and a specificity of 93% (89-100%). The CAM-IMC reached a sensitivity of 88% (64-99%) and a specificity of 100% (95-100%). The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses found an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.941 (95%CI 0.851-1.000) for the CAM-IMC, which was the highest compared to the other delirium tests (CAM-ICU, AUC 0.853 [0.720-0.986]; disorientation, AUC 0.868 [0.745-0.991]). This research emphasizes the importance of the feature "disorientation" for delirium assessments in patients able to verbally communicate and explains some controversial delirium ratings in daily practice. The CAM-IMC appears to be an attractive tool for delirium assessment in nonintubated patients and deserves further 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.