ArticleHRB open research2024
Delirium and Cognitive Screening in National Hip Fracture Registries: Scoping Review Protocol.
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 4 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
4 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
- Delirium and cognitive assessment in national hip fracture registries: a scoping review.European geriatric medicine · 2025Article
- Enhancing Cognitive Impairment Assessment and Management in Hip Fracture Patients: A Two-Cycle Clinical Audit.Cureus · 2025Article
- Delirium and Cognitive Screening in National Hip Fracture Registries: Scoping Review Protocol.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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Delirium and cognitive impairment are common in hip fracture populations and are associated with significant adverse patient outcomes. National hip fracture registries facilitate improvements in patient outcomes and care quality, such as reduced mortality and the development of specialist multidisciplinary services. However, there is substantial variation in the data collected and reported in relation to delirium and cognition, which impedes international comparison and may reduce quality of care. Objective: This scoping review aims to identify delirium and cognition data items currently collected by hip fracture registries internationally, to identify associated registry guidance that exists for the administration of delirium and cognitive screening tools, and report outcomes of these data items across the most recently published annual reports of identified hip fracture registries. Methods: This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We will search the following databases: Medline Ovid; Embase; CINAHL EBSCOHost. Relevant websites such as the Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) will also be searched. Study selection and review will be carried out independently by two research team members, with discrepancies resolved by a third member of the research team. Data extraction and synthesis will be conducted by one reviewer and checked for accuracy and omissions by another. The scoping review findings will be informed and validated through engagement with the FFN Hip Fracture Audit Special Interest Group, who will share their knowledge, expertise, and research to achieve consensus over core aspects of the scoping review findings. Conclusion: By identifying existing heterogeneity in delirium and cognitive screening tool use and administration, it is hoped that administration and specific screening tool use will become standardised to optimise comparability across countries and ensure that high quality and reliable data are included across international registry reports.
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.