Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34981431›Full record

SynthesisAging clinical and experimental research2022

Delirium screening tools in the post-anaesthetic care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Rami K Aldwikat, Elizabeth Manias, Emily Tomlinson, Mohammed Amin, Patricia Nicholson

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Deconstructing delirium in the post anaesthesia care unit.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2022
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rami K AldwikatSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia. rami.aldwikat@mh.org.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2886-5180
Elizabeth ManiasSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3747-0087
Emily TomlinsonSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8361-4774
Mohammed AminSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Patricia NicholsonSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7802-6863
Deakin University · AUThe Royal Melbourne Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDelirium is a serious neurocognitive disorder among surgical patients in the post-anaesthetic care unit (PACU). Despite the development of screening tools to identify delirium, it is not clear which tool is the most accurate and reliable in assessing delirium in the PACU.

aimTo examine the diagnostic accuracy of delirium screening tools used in the PACU.

methodsA systematic literature search of CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Scopus was conducted, using MeSH terms and relevant keywords, from databases establishment to 23 April 2021. Studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) tool.

resultsA total of 1503 studies were screened from the database search, four studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Six delirium screening tools used in the PACU were identified in the selected studies. Three studies evaluated screening tools in adult surgical patients without cognitive impairment and dementia. Two studies evaluated screening tools among patients who were scheduled for elective surgery. Review results indicated that two tools, the 4A's test (4AT; sensitivity 96%; specificity 99%) and the 3 min diagnostic interview for the Confusion Assessment Method (3D-CAM; sensitivity 100%; specificity 88%), had greatest validity and reliability as a screening tool for detecting delirium in the PACU.

conclusionResults indicate the 4AT and the 3D-CAM are most accurate screening tools to detect delirium in the PACU. Further research is required to validate those tools among a broader surgical population, including patients with cognitive impairment, dementia and those undergoing emergency surgical procedures.

Indexed as

AnestheticsDeliriumDementiaHumansReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityAnestheticsDeliriumDelirium diagnosisPost-anesthetic recovery unitScreening toolsSensitivity and specificity

Identifiers

PMID34981431
OpenAlexW4206323600

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.