SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
Prevalence of delirium among patients with advanced cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology. 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
Background: Delirium is a prevalent complication experienced by patients with advanced cancer and is associated with various adverse outcomes. Although delirium is widely reported among patients with advanced cancer, its estimated prevalence shows considerable heterogeneity across studies. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of delirium among patients with advanced cancer. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across ten major electronic databases from their inception to September 15, 2025. Data extraction was undertaken using a structured data collection form, and methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool for prevalence studies. A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence of delirium. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the Results: A total of 17 studies comprising 9,007 patients with advanced cancer yielded a pooled delirium prevalence of 35.6% (95% CI: 27.2-44.1). 13 studies were appraised as having a low overall risk of bias, while 4 were considered to have a moderate risk of bias. The results of subgroup analysis indicated that the pooled prevalence of delirium among patients with advanced cancer exhibited significant variation depending on the assessment tool employed. Conclusion: Our findings indicated that delirium is highly prevalent among patients with advanced cancer, highlighting the necessity for early screening, prevention, and treatment. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to limitations such as the small sample size and considerable heterogeneity. Moreover, the inclusion of only three studies from developing countries limits generalizability to low-resource settings. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251167526.
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.