ArticleJournal of the American Geriatrics Society2024
Factors associated with disagreement between clinician app-based ultra-brief Confusion Assessment Method and reference standard delirium assessments.
Article in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical performance of an ultra-brief delirium screening tool in hospitalized older adults.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Delirium prevalence, diagnostic uncertainty and outcomes in ORCHARD-EPR: validation against prospective reference cohorts.Age and ageing · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecently, the Ultra-Brief Confusion Assessment Method (UB-CAM), designed to help physicians and nurses to recognize delirium, showed high, but imperfect, accuracy compared with Research Reference Standard Delirium Assessments (RRSDAs). The aim of this study is to identify factors associated with disagreement between clinicians' app-based UB-CAM assessments and RRSDAs.
methodsThis is a secondary analysis of a prospective diagnostic test study. The study was conducted at two hospitals and included 527 inpatients (≥70 years old) and 289 clinicians (53 physicians, 236 nurses). Trained research associates performed RRSDAs and determined delirium presence using the CAM. Clinicians administered the UB-CAM using an iPad app. Disagreement factors considered were clinician, patient, and delirium characteristics. We report odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.
resultsOne thousand seven hundred and ninety-five clinician UB-CAM assessments paired with RRSDAs were administered. The prevalence of delirium was 17%. The rate of disagreement between clinician UB-CAM assessments and RRSDAs was 12%. Significant factors associated with disagreement between clinician UB-CAM assessments and RRSDAs (OR [95% CI]) included: presence of dementia (2.7 [1.8-4.1]), patient education high school or less (1.9 [1.3-2.9]), psychomotor retardation (2.5 [1.4-4.2]), and the presence of mild delirium or subsyndromal delirium (5.5 [3.5-8.7]). Significant risk factors for false negatives were patient age less than 80 (2.2 [1.1-4.3]) and mild delirium (3.5 [1.6-7.4]). Significant risk factors for false positives were presence of dementia (4.0 [2.3-7.0]), subsyndromal delirium (5.1 [2.9-9.1]), and patient education high school or less (2.0 [1.2-3.6]). Clinician characteristics were not significantly associated with disagreement.
conclusionsThe strongest factors associated with disagreement between clinician UB-CAM screens and RRSDAs were the presence of dementia and subsyndromal delirium as risk factors for false positives, and mild delirium and younger age as a risk factor for false negatives. These disagreement factors contrast with previous studies of risk factors for incorrect clinician delirium screening, and better align screening results with patient outcomes.
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.