Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37386536›Full record

ReviewJournal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care2021

Systematic review of clinical evidence on postoperative delirium: literature search of original studies based on validated diagnostic scales.

F Bilotta, G Russo, M Verrengia, A Sportelli, L Foti, G Villa, S Romagnoli

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Acute kidney injury and postoperative delirium.Journal of biomedical research · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

F BilottaDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Policlinico Umbero I, "Sapienza", University of Rome, Rome, Italy. bilotta@tiscali.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2496-6646
G RussoDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Policlinico Umbero I, "Sapienza", University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
M VerrengiaDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Policlinico Umbero I, "Sapienza", University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
A SportelliDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Policlinico Umbero I, "Sapienza", University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
L FotiDepartment of Health Science section of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
G VillaDepartment of Health Science section of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
S RomagnoliDepartment of Health Science section of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPostoperative delirium is a serious complication that can occur within the 5th postoperative day. In 2017, the European Society of Anesthesiologists delivered dedicated guidelines that reported the need for routine monitoring using validated scales.

objectiveAim of this systematic review is to identify clinical studies related to postoperative delirium that included postoperative monitoring with validated scales.

designSystematic review

methodsSearched keywords included the following terms: postoperative, postsurgical, post anesthesia, anesthesia recovery, delirium, and confusion. Two researchers independently screened retrieved studies using a data extraction form.

resultsLiterature search led to retrieve 6475 hits; of these, 260 studies (5.6% of the retrieved), published between 1987 and 2021, included in their methods a diagnostic workup with the use of a postoperative delirium validated scale and monitored patients for more than 24 h, therefore are qualified to be included in the present systematic review.

conclusionIn conclusion, available clinical literature on postoperative delirium relies on a limited number of studies, that included a validated diagnostic workup based on validated scales, extracted from a large series of studies that used inconsistent diagnostic criteria. In order to extract indications based on reliable evidence-based criteria, these are the studies that should be selectively considered. The analysis of these studies can also serve to design future projects and to test clinical hypothesis with a more standardized methodological approach.

Indexed as

Confused assessment methodEvidence-based medicineGuidelinesLevel of evidencePostoperative deliriumValidated diagnostic postoperative delirium scales

Identifiers

PMID37386536
PMCPMC10245484

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.