ArticleBMC nursing2025
Efficacy and safety of care bundles in the treatment of delirium in ICU patients: a meta-analysis and systemic review.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic meta-review of interventions to prevent and manage delirium in the Intensive Care Unit: Part 2 - Non-pharmacological and multicomponent interventions.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating Artificial Intelligence Models for ICU Length of Stay Prediction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Explainable deep-learning models to predict diaphragmatic dysfunction and cognitive stress in ICU patients under mechanical ventilation.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim is to explore the impact of care bundles on the efficacy and safety of delirium management in intensive care unit (ICU) patients compared to standard care through a meta-analysis and systematic review.
methodChina National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), Embase, Cochrane, Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM), and VIP databases were searched from the database inception to December 1, 2024. The inclusion criteria based on the PICOS strategy include ICU patients (P), and randomized controlled trials (RCT) (S) comparing the treatment outcomes (such as incidence of delirium, duration of delirium, duration of mechanical ventilation, mortality rate, etc.) (O) between the care bundles (I) and standard care (C). Two investigators independently screened the literature, extracted the data, and assessed the quality of the included literature using the Cochrane Quality Assessment Tool. Meta-analysis was performed using STATA15.0 software.
resultsEighteen studies were included with a total of 2,717patients involved. Most studies have a high/moderate risk of bias. The results of the meta-analysis demonstrated that care bundles was effective in decreasing the (1)incidence of delirium in ICU patients [risk ratio [RR] = 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] : 0.32, 0.45; P < 0.001], shortening the (2)duration of delirium(days) (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -1.60, 95% CI : -1.96, -1.23; P < 0.001), and (3)duration of mechanical ventilation in corresponding patients(days) (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -1.65, 95% CI : -2.40, -0.89; P < 0.001). However, there was no statistical difference in patient (4) mortality (RR = 0.78, 95% CI : 0.44, 1.40; P = 0.41).
conclusionsCare bundles have positive effects on delirium in ICU patients. However, results with significant heterogeneity should be interpreted with caution, and differences in bundles need to be taken into account. More multi-center, largesample randomized controlled studies are required to further explore the optimal components and combinations of care bundles.
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.