ArticleHeliyon2024
Screening and differential diagnosis of delirium in neurointensive stroke patients.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk-predicting and screening tools of post-stroke delirium: a narrative review.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnosing delirium in neurointensive care is difficult because symptoms of delirium, such as inappropriate speech, may be related to aphasia due to primary brain injury. Therefore, validated screening tools are needed. The aim of this study was to compare two Czech versions of already validated screening tools - the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) - in a cohort of acute stroke patients. We also aimed to assess the pitfalls of delirium detection in the context of non-convulsive status epilepticus (NCSE). We analysed 138 stroke patients admitted to the neurological intensive care unit (ICU) or stroke unit. According to expert judgement, which was used as the gold standard, 38 patients (27.54%) developed delirium. The sensitivity and specificity of the ICDSC were 91.60% and 95.33%, respectively, and the positive and negative predictive values were 76.76% and 98.54%, respectively. Similarly, the sensitivity and specificity of CAM-ICU were 75.63% and 96.74%, respectively, and the positive and negative predictive values were 79.65% and 95.93%, respectively. We did not detect an episode of NCSE mimicking delirium in any of our stroke patients who were judged to be delirious by expert assessment. Our results suggest that the ICDSC may be a more suitable tool for delirium screening than the CAM-ICU in patients with neurological deficit. NCSE as a mimic of delirium seems to be less common in the acute phase of stroke than previously reported.
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.