SynthesisRevista de neurologia2023
[Tools available in Spanish for clinical assessment of delirium. Systematic review].
Synthesis in Revista de neurologia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unveiling the storm: delirium coding trends among hospitalized Peruvian older adults.Dementia & neuropsychologia · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDelirium assessment is difficult because it involves the alteration of different mental functions in patients of any age who have serious medical-surgical conditions or dementia. Therefore, concrete assessment tools for specific needs are required. This systematic review synthetizes the information about the tools available in Spanish for delirium clinical assessment. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis is a systematic review that follows the PRISMA Diagnostic Test Accuracy guideline. Using a search algorithm, two researchers assessed five scientific indexing systems and searched for additional papers and grey literature. Other two researchers recorded in a standardized way the data of the papers included. The quality of translations, cultural adaptations, and validations were assessed.
resultsWe identified 21 reports on translation, cultural adaptation, or validation of 14 tools for 1) detailed evaluation, diagnosis, and quantification of severity by experts, 2) assessment of concrete aspects of delirium, 3) screening in adults, 4) pediatric screening, and 5) diagnosis and weighting of severity by treating staff. 78.6% of translations and all adaptations are of good quality. 52.9% of validations have a low risk of bias, 41.2% have a moderate risk, and only 5.9% have a high risk.
conclusionsAs the first step to correctly treat patients is an accurate diagnosis, and the selection of the appropriate instruments is essential for the validity of any study, the available tools should be chosen according to the specific clinical and research needs.
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.