Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34870884›Full record

Observational studyAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2022

REcognizing DElirium in geriatric Emergency Medicine: The REDEEM risk stratification score.

Lucas Oliveira J E Silva, Jessica A Stanich, Molly M Jeffery, Aidan F Mullan, Susan M Bower, Ronna L Campbell, Alejandro A Rabinstein, Robert J Pignolo, Fernanda Bellolio

Open access · greenAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lucas Oliveira J E SilvaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5388-9163
Jessica A StanichDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Molly M JefferyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3854-6810
Aidan F MullanDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8076-6935
Susan M BowerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Ronna L CampbellDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6305-6990
Alejandro A RabinsteinDepartment of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8359-2838
Robert J PignoloDepartment of Hospital Internal Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Fernanda BellolioDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1632-4750
Mayo Clinic · USMayo Clinic in Florida · US

Funding

Mayo Clinic Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCaTS UL1 Supplement - Dr. Timothy Curry)UL1TR002377 · NCATS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI VESNA D GAROVIC · 2017 to 2026
$78.4M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002377
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective was to derive a risk score that uses variables available early during the emergency department (ED) encounter to identify high-risk geriatric patients who may benefit from delirium screening.

methodsThis was an observational study of older adults age ≥ 75 years who presented to an academic ED and who were screened for delirium during their ED visit. Variable selection from candidate predictors was performed through a LASSO-penalized logistic regression. A risk score was derived from the final prediction model, and predictive accuracy characteristics were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

resultsFrom the 967 eligible ED visits, delirium was detected in 107 (11.1%). The area under the curve for the REcognizing DElirium in Emergency Medicine (REDEEM) score was 0.901 (95% CI = 0.864-0.938). The REEDEM risk score included 10 different variables (seven based on triage information and three obtained during early history taking) with a score ranging from -3 to 66. Using an optimal cutoff of ≥11, we found a sensitivity of 84.1% (90 of 107 ED delirium patients, 95% CI = 75.5%-90.2%) and a specificity of 86.6% (745 of 860 non-ED delirium patients, 95% CI = 84.1%-88.8%). A lower cutoff of ≥5 was found to minimize false negatives with an improved sensitivity at 91.6% (98 of 107 ED delirium patients, 95% CI = 84.2%-95.8%).

conclusionA risk stratification score was derived with the potential to augment delirium recognition in geriatric ED patients. This has the potential to assist on delirium-targeted screening of high-risk patients in the ED. Validation of REDEEM, however, is needed prior to implementation.

Indexed as

DeliriumEmergency MedicineAgedEmergency Service, HospitalGeriatric AssessmentHumansProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID34870884
PMCPMC9050857
OpenAlexW4200553552

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.