Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37674643›Full record

ArticleJournal of hospice and palliative care2021

Screening and Assessment Tools for Measuring Delirium in Patients with Cancer in Hospice and Palliative Care: A Systematic Review.

Eun Jung Yang, Bong-Jin Hahm, Eun-Jung Shim

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of hospice and palliative care, 2021. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Delirium severity trajectories and survival outcome in palliative care patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eun Jung YangDepartment of Psychology, Pusan National University, Busan, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1675-5291
Bong-Jin HahmDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2366-3275
Eun-Jung ShimDepartment of Psychology, Pusan National University, Busan, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9807-462X
Pusan National University · KRSeoul National University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This study reviewed screening and assessment tools that are used to measure delirium in patients with cancer in hospice and palliative care settings and examined their psychometric properties. Methods: Four databases were searched for studies using related search terms (delirium, tools, palliative care, cancer, and others). The inclusion criteria were a) studies that included screening/assessment tools for measuring delirium in cancer patients receiving hospice/palliative care, and b) studies published in English or Korean. The exclusion criteria were a) studies that were conducted in an intensive care setting, and b) case studies, qualitative studies, systematic reviews, or meta-analyses. Results: Out of the 81 studies identified, only 10 examined the psychometric properties of tools for measuring delirium, and 8 tools were ultimately identified. The psychometric properties of the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) were the most frequently examined (n=5), and the MDAS showed good reliability, concurrent validity, and diagnostic accuracy. The Delirium Rating Scale had good reliability and diagnostic accuracy. The Delirium Rating Scale-Revised 98 also showed good reliability and structural validity, but its diagnostic performance was not examined in hospice/palliative care settings. The Nursing Delirium Screening Scale showed relatively low diagnostic accuracy. Conclusion: The MDAS showed evidence of being a valid assessment tool for assessing delirium in patients with cancer in palliative care. Few studies examined the diagnostic performance of delirium tools. Therefore, further studies are needed to examine the diagnostic performance of screening/assessment tools for the optimal detection of delirium in patients with cancer in hospice/palliative care.

Indexed as

DeliriumDiagnosisNeoplasmsPalliative care

Identifiers

PMID37674643
PMCPMC10180070
OpenAlexW4200280956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.