Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41390628›Full record

SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2025

Risk prediction models for delirium in ICU patients: a systematic review and critical appraisal.

Wen-Hua Chen, Lei Ding, Yue Sha, Gongqian Lu, Kaimin Qian, Bin Wang, Huiling Wang

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Wen-Hua ChenDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Nantong Haimen People's Hospital, Nantong, 226100, China.
Lei DingDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Nantong Haimen People's Hospital, Nantong, 226100, China.
Yue ShaDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Nantong Haimen People's Hospital, Nantong, 226100, China.
Gongqian LuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Nantong Haimen People's Hospital, Nantong, 226100, China.
Kaimin QianDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Nantong Haimen People's Hospital, Nantong, 226100, China.
Bin WangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Nantong Haimen People's Hospital, Nantong, 226100, China.
Huiling WangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Nantong Haimen People's Hospital, Nantong, 226100, China. 116354027@qq.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

DeliriumIntensive Care UnitsHumansRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsDeliriumIntensive care unitsPrediction modelsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41390628
PMCPMC12817868

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.