ArticleEuropean geriatric medicine2025
Delirium and cognitive assessment in national hip fracture registries: a scoping review.
Article in European geriatric medicine, 2025. 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
- The development and evolution of the Irish Hip Fracture Database: a quality care initiative 2013-2024.Archives of osteoporosis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDelirium and cognitive impairment are common in older adults with hip fracture and are associated with adverse patient outcomes. The Fragility Fracture Network recommends that national hip fracture registries (HFRs) include a measure of cognitive status. However, inconsistency in recording of delirium and cognitive assessment data hinders international comparison and may reduce care quality. This scoping review aims to identify delirium and cognitive assessment data items collected by national HFRs and the associated key data reported in the latest annual reports.
methodsWe searched three databases (Medline Ovid; Embase; CINAHL EBSCOHost) from inception to 18 November 2024 and relevant organisational websites. Two authors independently assessed titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility. Prespecified data items were extracted from identified eligible HFRs. Descriptive analysis was used to summarise findings.
resultsTwenty-two eligible HFRs were identified. Of these, 14 (64%) collected delirium assessment data, 18 (82%) collected cognitive assessment data, while only one registry collected neither. There was heterogeneity in delirium and cognitive assessment tools, though seven (50%) HFRs recommended using the 4AT. Delirium assessment completion rates were 47.7-95.9% pre-operatively and 34.2-95.9% post-operatively, while positive delirium score rates were 14.7-22% pre-operatively and 5-42% post-operatively. Cognitive assessment tool completion and positive score rates were 58.5-100% and 9.9-52.4%, respectively.
conclusionMost HFRs incorporate delirium and cognitive assessment data items, but there is heterogeneity in tools and methods. Improving the consistency of data collection across HFRs can improve comparability and patient care.
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.