Observational studyBMC geriatrics2025
Delirium prevalence and incidence in acutely admitted older patients: an observational cohort study.
Observational study in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDelirium is common in acutely ill older adults and is associated with multiple unfavourable outcomes, including an increased risk of dementia and death. As the population ages and more people live with dementia, updated and accurate estimates of delirium prevalence are important. The primary aim of this study was to identify delirium point prevalence in the emergency department and incidence during hospitalisation. Our secondary aim was to compare outcomes: length of stay, need for a higher level of care, and mortality after discharge in patients with and without delirium.
methodsIn this unselected observational cohort study, all older adults aged 65 years or above acutely admitted to the emergency department of a large Norwegian hospital during a 5-day and 4-night midweek period, were screened for delirium by the 4 “A”s test. A final consensus delirium diagnosis was made based on review of all available information in the patients’ electronic health record to consider if The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition’s criteria (DSM-V) for delirium were fulfilled.
resultsOf 240 patients assessed, 14% (n = 33) fulfilled DSM-V criteria for delirium in the emergency department, and 8% (n = 17) of the remaining 207 patients developed delirium later during the hospitalisation. Only 4 of the 50 patients with delirium (8%) had a documented diagnosis of delirium in their discharge summary. For patients with delirium, the current hospital admission was more often a readmission (42% vs. 18%, p < 0.001). Delirium patients also had longer hospitalisations (4 vs. 2 days, p < 0.001), and higher 9-month mortality (52% vs. 14%, p = 0.002), corrected for age, sex and severity of acute illness by The National Early Warning Score 2.
conclusionsDelirium was common and underdiagnosed in our study and associated with unfavourable outcomes for the patients. Delirium prevention, identification and management should be key priorities for the health care system.
trial registrationOur article does not report results of a health care intervention, and the protocol is not registered in a trial registry.
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.