Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35241132›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2022

Distribution of delirium motor subtypes in the intensive care unit: a systematic scoping review.

Kirstine N la Cour, Nina C Andersen-Ranberg, Sarah Weihe, Lone M Poulsen, Camilla B Mortensen, Cilia K W Kjer, Marie O Collet, Stine Estrup, Ole Mathiesen

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Kirstine N la CourDepartment of Anesthesiology, Centre for Anaesthesiological Research, Zealand University Hospital, Koege, Denmark. klac@regionsjaelland.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-4666-4326
Nina C Andersen-RanbergDepartment of Anesthesiology, Centre for Anaesthesiological Research, Zealand University Hospital, Koege, Denmark.
Sarah WeiheDepartment of Anesthesiology, Centre for Anaesthesiological Research, Zealand University Hospital, Koege, Denmark.
Lone M PoulsenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Centre for Anaesthesiological Research, Zealand University Hospital, Koege, Denmark.
Camilla B MortensenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Centre for Anaesthesiological Research, Zealand University Hospital, Koege, Denmark.
Cilia K W KjerDepartment of Anesthesiology, Centre for Anaesthesiological Research, Zealand University Hospital, Koege, Denmark.
Marie O ColletDepartment of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Denmark.
Stine EstrupDepartment of Anesthesiology, Centre for Anaesthesiological Research, Zealand University Hospital, Koege, Denmark.
Ole MathiesenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Centre for Anaesthesiological Research, Zealand University Hospital, Koege, Denmark.
Zealand University Hospital · DKCopenhagen University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDelirium is the most common cerebral dysfunction in the intensive care unit (ICU) and can be subdivided into a hypoactive, hyperactive, or mixed motor subtype based on the clinical manifestation. The aim of this review was to describe the distribution, pharmacological interventions, and outcomes of delirium motor subtypes in ICU patients.

methodsThis systematic scoping review was performed according to the PRISMA-ScR and Cochrane guidelines. We performed a systematic search in six major databases to identify relevant studies. A meta-regression analysis was performed where pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals were computed by a random effect model.

resultsWe included 131 studies comprising 13,902 delirious patients. There was a large between-study heterogeneity among studies, including differences in study design, setting, population, and outcome reporting. Hypoactive delirium was the most prevalent delirium motor subtype (50.3% [95% CI 46.0-54.7]), followed by mixed delirium (27.7% [95% CI 24.1-31.3]) and hyperactive delirium (22.7% [95% CI 19.0-26.5]). When comparing the delirium motor subtypes, patients with mixed delirium experienced the longest delirium duration, ICU and hospital length of stay, the highest ICU and hospital mortality, and more frequently received administration of specific agents (antipsychotics, α2-agonists, benzodiazepines, and propofol) during ICU stay. In studies with high average age for delirious patients (> 65 years), patients were more likely to experience hypoactive delirium.

conclusionsHypoactive delirium was the most prevalent motor subtype in critically ill patients. Mixed delirium had the worst outcomes in terms of delirium duration, length of stay, and mortality, and received more pharmacological interventions compared to other delirium motor subtypes. Few studies contributed to secondary outcomes; hence, these results should be interpreted with care. The large between-study heterogeneity suggests that a more standardized methodology in delirium research is warranted.

Indexed as

DeliriumAgedCritical CareCritical IllnessHumansIntensive Care UnitsPsychomotor AgitationCritically illDeliriumDelirium motor subtypeIntensive care

Identifiers

PMID35241132
PMCPMC8896322
OpenAlexW4214877309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.