ArticleAge and ageing2024
Core outcome set for studies evaluating interventions to prevent or treat delirium in long-term care older residents: international key stakeholder informed consensus study.
Article in Age and ageing, 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.
- Article
- Delirium in the long-term care: a challenge for clinicians and researchers-the negative outcomes related to delirium: a scoping review.European geriatric medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTrials of interventions to prevent or treat delirium in older adults resident in long-term care settings (LTC) report heterogenous outcomes, hampering the identification of effective management strategies for this important condition. Our objective was to develop international consensus among key stakeholders for a core outcome set (COS) for future trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in this population.
methodsWe used a rigorous COS development process including qualitative interviews with family members and staff with experience of delirium in LTC; a modified two-round Delphi survey; and virtual consensus meetings using nominal group technique. The study was registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative (https://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/796).
resultsItem generation identified 22 delirium-specific outcomes and 32 other outcomes from 18 qualitative interviews. When combined with outcomes identified in our earlier systematic review, and following an item reduction step, this gave 43 outcomes that advanced to the formal consensus processes. These involved 169 participants from 12 countries, and included healthcare professionals (121, 72%), researchers (24, 14%), and family members/people with experience of delirium (24, 14%). Six outcomes were identified as essential to include in all trials of interventions for delirium in LTC, and were therefore included in the COS. These are: 'delirium occurrence'; 'delirium related distress'; 'delirium severity'; 'cognition including memory', 'admission to hospital' and 'mortality'.
conclusionsThis COS, endorsed by the American Delirium Society and the European and Australasian Delirium Associations, is recommended for use in future clinical trials evaluating delirium prevention or treatment interventions for older adults residing in LTC.
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.