SynthesisMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2024
[Delirium in stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis].
Synthesis in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk-predicting and screening tools of post-stroke delirium: a narrative review.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Review
- Research progress of postoperative delirium in neurosurgery.World journal of psychiatry · 2025Review
- Delirium following mechanical thrombectomy for ischemic stroke - individuals at risk, imaging biomarkers and prognosis.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Article
- The RAPID-score: Risk Assessment and PredIction of Delirium in acute stroke patients based on very early clinical parameters.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDue to the complexity of the symptoms, delirium detection poses a challenge in stroke patients. A large body of literature has established that neurospecific challenges can have a considerable impact on diagnosis and are underrepresented in screening.
objectivesAn analysis of current scientific literature on delirium screening tests and their applicability in stroke patients, acknowledging neurospecific challenges and evaluating diagnostic test accuracy.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies published between 2018 and 2021 were evaluated and the study quality was assessed according to the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement. Furthermore, the specificity and sensitivity of delirium screening tests were pooled
resultsThe systematic literature review found a total of 2636 articles, following a review of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Thus, 18 moderate-quality studies with a total of 3320 patients and 9 distinct delirium screenings were identified. Within those 18 studies, the prevalence of delirium was 34.2%. However, the delirium prevalence was significantly lower in 6 studies that included patients with neurologic impairments (26.5 vs. 32.1%, p = 0.0004). Pooled sensitivity and specificity for the 4AT (Rapid assessment test for delirium ) were 82 and 77%, while these values were 72 and 93% for the CAM-ICU (Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Units) and 79 and 72% for the ICDSC (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist).
conclusionsNeurological impairments may influence the test quality of delirium screening in stroke patients. The CAM-ICU can be recommended for nonaphasic patients. The ICDSC can be used in all stroke patients on stoke units with an adjusted cut-off value of > 5 points.
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.