ArticleHRB open research2024
Diagnostic test accuracy of screening tools for the detection of neurocognitive disorders in older adults post-trauma: A protocol for a systematic review.
Article in HRB open research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic test accuracy of screening tools for the detection of neurocognitive disorders in older adults post-trauma in acute care settings: a systematic review.European geriatric medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic test accuracy of screening tools for the detection of neurocognitive disorders in older adults post-trauma: A protocol for a systematic review.HRB open research · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Neurocognitive disorders (NCDs), including delirium, cognitive impairment, or dementia are prevalent in up to 39% of older adults in acute care, particularly older trauma patients. Undiagnosed NCDs result in poor outcomes, such as increased incidence of depressive symptoms, longer length of stay, and mortality. Objective: This study aims to identify the diagnostic test accuracy of screening tools for the detection of NCDs in older trauma patients in acute settings. Design: Systematic review protocol. Literature search: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library) will be searched for journal articles. Search terms related to NCDs, delirium and cognitive screening tools, and diagnostic accuracy will be included. Study selection criteria: Cross-sectional, prospective, or retrospective cohort studies of adults aged ≥60 post-trauma, in an acute setting, will be included where the study aimed to validate a screening tool for detection of 1) delirium or 2) cognitive impairment, or dementia against a reference standard of a clinical decision, based on standardised diagnostic criteria or a validated tool. Data synthesis: Two review authors will conduct study selection, data extraction, and appraisal. Data will be extracted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) checklist. Studies will be assessed for methodological quality by two independent review authors using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Narrative summaries will be generated describing risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability. Quantitative synthesis of study findings will be conducted. Conclusion: This systematic review will aim to identify screening tools with the best diagnostic accuracy for detection of 1) delirium and 2) cognitive impairment or dementia in adults aged ≥60 post-trauma in acute care settings. Results will inform clinical practice to enhance the probability of patients with NCDs receiving appropriate care and management. Registration: PROSPERO https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024518730 (11/03/2024).
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.