ReviewCancers2023
Accuracy of Delirium Screening Tools in Older People with Cancer-A Systematic Review.
Review in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mortality Risk Following Delirium in Older Inpatients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Worldviews on evidence-based nursing · 2025Pooled it
- Bridging FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and Clinical Practice: Comprehensive Characterization of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Toxicities in Geriatric Lung Cancer Patients.Thoracic cancer · 2026Article
- Detecting delirium in Parkinson's disease: an evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of bedside tools.Age and ageing · 2025Observational
- The Confusion Assessment Method Could Be More Accurate than the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale for Diagnosing Delirium in Older Cancer Patients: An Exploratory Study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Validation Study of the PALCOM Scale of Complexity of Palliative Care Needs: A Cohort Study in Advanced Cancer Patients.Cancers · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe increase in life expectancy worldwide has led to a larger population of older people, which in turn entails a rising prevalence of cancer. One of the main complications of cancer is delirium, especially in advanced stages.
objectiveTo determine which delirium screening instrument is the most accurate in older people with cancer.
methodsA systematic review was designed. A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EBSCO and SCOPUS; additional records were identified by handsearching. Selection criteria were studies involving people with cancer and a mean sample age of 60 years or older, assessing delirium, and reporting the metric properties of the assessment instrument. Studies with post-surgical patients and substance abuse delirium were excluded.
resultsFrom 2001 to 2021, 14 eligible studies evaluated 13 different assessment tools, reporting an incidence of delirium ranging from 14.3% to 68.3%. The Delirium Observation Screening Scale (DOSS) showed the best metric properties, followed by the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (NuDESC), Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS). Only two studies were considered to be at low risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 Tool. No study exclusively examined this population group.
conclusionsScreening tools for delirium are heterogeneous for older people with cancer, and there is a need to analyze metric properties exclusively in the older population. Registered on PROSPERO ID: CRD42022303530.
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.