ReviewFrontiers in psychology2023
Detecting delirium: a systematic review of ultrabrief identification instruments for hospital patients.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Delirium detection in the emergency department: A diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis of history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and screening instruments.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2024Pooled it
- "Pleasantly confused" and missed opportunities for delirium recognition: A hospital record audit.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Article
- Nurses' usage of validated tools to assess for delirium in general acute care settings: A scoping review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Review
- Clinical performance of an ultra-brief delirium screening tool in hospitalized older adults.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Predicting and Early Detection of Delirium through Motion Patterns: A Narrative Review.Clinical psychopharmacology and neuroscience : the official scientific journal of the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026Review
- Diabetes and postoperative cognitive dysfunction and delirium in adults: mechanisms, biomarkers, and clinical management.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Predicting ICU Delirium in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients Using Demographic, Clinical, and Laboratory Admission Data: A Machine Learning Approach.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Nurses' usage of validated tools to assess for delirium in general acute care settings: A scoping review protocol.HRB open research · 2025Article
- Enhancing Delirium Prediction and Prevention in Elderly Patients Through Machine Learning-Based Analysis.Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2025Article
- Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About the Psychiatric Manifestations of Nonpsychiatric Serious Illness and Treatments.Journal of palliative medicine · 2024Article
- A world-wide study on delirium assessments and presence of protocols.Age and ageing · 2024Article
- Current Trends for Delirium Screening within the Emergency Department.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Early identification of delirium, which often occurs in older patients, can effectively reduce adverse prognoses. One way to increase the detection rate of delirium is to use an effective ultrabrief instrument for higher-frequency screening. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ultrabrief screening tools for delirium. Methods: The Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMBASE were searched from January 1, 1974, to November 31, 2022. We assessed the measurement properties of screening instruments using the consensus-based standards for selecting health measurement instruments (COSMIN) checklist and evaluated the risk bias of the included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. The diagnostic test accuracy of instruments for delirium was reported using sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR). Result: Of the 4,914 items identified, 26 met the eligibility criteria, resulting in 5 different delirium identification tools. The overall study quality assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool was moderate to good. Of the five screening tools, two instruments had sensitivity ≥80% and specificities ≥80%: 4AT and UB-2. The most comprehensive is the 4AT scale, which has a sensitivity of 0.80 [95% confidence interval (CI):0.68, 0.88] and a specificity of 0.89 (95%CI: 0.83, 0.93) and contains 4 items. UB-2 has a sensitivity of 0.88 (95%CI: 0.72, 0.96) and a specificity of 0.64 (95%CI: 0.56, 0.70). Conclusion: UB-2 and MOTYB had excellent sensitivity for delirium screening at an early stage. In terms of sensitivity and intentionality, the 4AT is the best recommended scale.
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.