SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2025
Risk prediction models for delirium in ICU patients: a systematic review and critical appraisal.
Synthesis in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and internal validation of an interpretable machine learning prognostic prediction model for postoperative delirium after esophagectomy.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Predicting ICU Delirium with a Regularized Logistic Regression Model: Device-Support Burden as an Informative Predictor Domain in a Turkish Cohort.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Incidence and independent risk factors for postoperative delirium in ICU patients after cardiopulmonary bypass cardiac surgery: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis systematic review aimed to critically appraise the methodological quality, predictive performance, and clinical applicability of published risk prediction models for delirium in adult intensive care unit patients.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to April 8, 2025. Eligible studies were observational cohorts developing or validating multivariable prediction models for ICU delirium in adults (≥ 18 years). The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251028221). Study selection and data extraction followed the CHARMS checklist. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST).
resultsA total of 27 studies, encompassing 26 prediction models, were included. Most models demonstrated apparently strong discrimination (AUCs ranging from 0.67 to 0.932), with common predictors including age, sedation, APACHE-II score, mechanical ventilation, and Glasgow Coma Scale score. However, the PROBAST assessment revealed a high risk of bias across most studies, primarily due to flaws in the analysis and predictor domains. Key limitations included inadequate handling of missing data, overfitting, predominant reliance on internal validation only, and heterogeneous delirium assessment methods. Only four models underwent both internal and external validation.
conclusionsDespite the promising discriminatory performance of several models, significant methodological shortcomings limit their current clinical applicability and generalizability. Future research should prioritize robust external validation, improved methodological rigor, and implementation studies to assess real-world utility before routine clinical adoption.
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.