SynthesisAge and ageing2022
Reporting of outcomes and measures in studies of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in older adults resident in long-term care: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Age and ageing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
- Improving delirium knowledge and recognition confidence in nursing homes through an e-learning program: a pre-post study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Delirium in the long-term care: a challenge for clinicians and researchers-the negative outcomes related to delirium: a scoping review.European geriatric medicine · 2025Article
- Outcomes and measures in studies of techniques to promote secretion clearance in individuals with neuromuscular conditions: a scoping review.ERJ open research · 2025Review
- Assessing delirium knowledge among health care professionals: findings from a scoping review.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Core outcome set for studies evaluating interventions to prevent or treat delirium in long-term care older residents: international key stakeholder informed consensus study.Age and ageing · 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
Abstract
objectivesto inform development of a core outcome set, we evaluated outcomes, definitions, measures and measurement time points in clinical trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in older adults resident in long-term care (LTC). DATA SOURCES: we searched electronic databases, systematic review repositories and trial registries (1980 to 10 December 2021). STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: we included randomised, quasi-randomised and non-randomised intervention studies. We extracted data on study characteristics, outcomes and measurement features. We assessed outcome reporting quality using the MOMENT study scoring system. We categorised outcomes using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy. DATA SYNTHESIS: we identified 18 studies recruiting 5,639 participants. All evaluated non-pharmacological interventions; most (16 studies, 89%) addressed delirium prevention. We identified 12 delirium-specific outcomes (mean [SD] 2.4 [1.5] per study), of which delirium incidence (14 studies, 78%) and severity (6 studies, 33%) were most common. We found heterogeneity in description of outcomes and measurement time points. The Confusion Assessment Method (three versions) was the most common measure used to ascertain delirium incidence (7 of 14 studies, 50%). We identified 25 non-delirium specific outcomes (mean [SD] 4.0 [2.3] per study), with hospital admission the most commonly reported (9 studies, 50%).
conclusionswe identified few studies of interventions for the prevention or treatment of delirium in older adults resident in LTC. These studies were heterogeneous in the outcomes reported and measures used. These data inform the consensus-building stage of a core outcome set.
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.