ArticleCritical care medicine2025
Optimizing Agreement Between Bedside Nurse-Documented and Trained Researcher Delirium Assessments in the ICU.
Article in Critical care medicine, 2025. 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.
- Review
- A machine learning-based prediction model for delirium risk in malnourished elderly ICU patients with SHAP interpretability.Frontiers in nutrition · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesDelirium is common and harmful in the ICU. The Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) and Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) are validated tools recommended for delirium identification. However, the accuracy of bedside nurse-documented delirium assessments in the ICU is inconsistent, limiting utility in clinical research. We sought to evaluate and optimize agreement between bedside nurse-documented and trained researcher delirium assessments. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Critically ill adults with acute respiratory failure or sepsis in ICUs in large academic hospitals in a southwestern Pennsylvania health system were assessed daily for delirium by bedside nurses (using the ICDSC) and trained researchers (using the CAM-ICU). Using matched nurse-to-researcher delirium assessments, we categorized delirium status using validated cutoffs and evaluated agreement using Cohen's kappa. We derived and compared logistic regression models that used ICDSC documentation, mechanical ventilation status, and admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment to predict delirium in noncomatose patients, using researcher CAM-ICU assessments as the reference standard. We internally validated models using ten-fold cross-validation.
interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsFrom a sample of 1535 matched assessments of 279 patients, there was moderate agreement between bedside nurse assessments using the established ICDSC delirium/normal cutoff (ICDSC ≥ 4) and trained researcher assessments using the CAM-ICU (Cohen's kappa = 0.42). A logistic regression model informed by individual ICDSC components and clinical data predicted a positive research CAM-ICU with good discrimination (area under the curve = 0.87) and performed well in cross-validation (F1 score = 0.72). In sensitivity analyses, models with more limited ICDSC information demonstrated fair to good discriminatory ability (F1 = 0.60-0.70), with the validated cutoff model having the lowest performance.
conclusionsA delirium model informed by bedside nurse ICDSC findings and clinical variables improves accuracy of delirium detected in the ICU and can be used in future pragmatic research that leverages large clinical datasets to advance understanding of delirium mechanisms, trajectories, and outcomes.
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.