ArticleBMC emergency medicine2026
Delirium in older adults in the emergency department: a scoping review of current research and identified knowledge gaps.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDelirium is a common neurocognitive syndrome among older adults, associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Emergency departments (EDs) represent a critical point for early detection and prevention, yet delirium often remains under-recognized in this setting. Contributing factors include overcrowding, sensory overload, and lack of orientation aids, combined with demographic shifts leading to more acutely admitted older adults with complex needs. This scoping review aimed to map existing research on delirium in elderly patients in EDs and identify knowledge gaps.
methodsThe review followed Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Structured searches were conducted in EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane, and PsycINFO for studies published between 2015 and July 2024, updated in September 2025. After duplicate removal, two reviewers independently screened 1,455 titles and abstracts, applying refined inclusion and exclusion criteria. 178 publications were reviewed in the research group. A total of 114 publications were included for full-text analysis.
resultsPublications represented all continents, except for Africa, and most originated from North America (n = 54) and Europe (n = 35). Through content analysis, studies were categorized into six themes: Prevention, Occurrence, Risk factors, Detection, Management, and Consequences. Occurrence (n = 55) and Detection (n = 47) were the largest categories, while Prevention was least represented (n = 10). Evidence indicates wide variability in reported prevalence, inconsistent screening practices, and limited intervention research. Key gaps include standardized screening protocols, staff training, and effective prevention and management strategies tailored to ED environments.
conclusionsDelirium in older adults remains a significant challenge in EDs worldwide. This review synthesises current research on occurrence, risk factors, detection, and clinical outcomes, while highlighting critical gaps in strategies for prevention and management to secure optimal care. Despite valuable insights, evidence on effective prevention and the use of described toolkits in practice is limited. These gaps underscore the urgent need for targeted interventions and robust implementation research to improve recognition and care for this vulnerable patient population.
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.