Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42341202›Full record

ArticleAge and ageing2026

Diagnostic test accuracies of 4AT items are consistent across the range of baseline cognition: results from two prospective studies.

Patrick Hogan, Hannah Cheston, Ophelia Dunne, Dominic Gardner, Amy McWhirter, Mark James Rawle, Imogen Stoodley, Sarah Joanna Richardson, Louise M Allan, Alasdair M J MacLullich and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Age and ageing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Patrick HoganInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, UK.
Hannah ChestonInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, UK.
Ophelia DunneInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, UK.
Dominic GardnerInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, UK.
Amy McWhirterInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, UK.
Mark James RawleCare of the Elderly, Whipps Cross University Hospital, London, England, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2831-6993
Imogen StoodleyInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, UK.
Sarah Joanna RichardsonTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, 3rd floor Biomedical Research Building Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5PL, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5771-1845
Louise M AllanCentre for Research in Ageing and Cognitive Health, University of Exeter, St Luke's Campus Heavitree Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8912-4901
Alasdair M J MacLullichGeriatric Medicine, University of Edinburgh MED, F1424, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh 51, Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 4SA, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3159-9370
Daniel H J DavisInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1560-1955
Alex TsuiInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6435-5968

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPresenting features of delirium can be difficult to distinguish from co-existing dementia phenomenology. While the 4 'A's Test (4AT) is a well validated delirium screening tool across multiple patient populations and healthcare settings, how its diagnostic performance varies across different levels of baseline cognition is unclear.

methodsThis study harmonises data from two prospective cohorts: the Delirium and Population Health Informatics Cohort (DELPHIC) and Delirium and Cognitive Impact in Dementia (DECIDE). Both cohorts were stratified into tertiles according to baseline cognition. Delirium was defined using DSM-IV (DELPHIC) and DSM-V (DECIDE). 4AT domain scores were operationalised from relevant delirium assessments within each study (MDAS, OSLA, months of the year backwards); item 4 was drawn from assessments of fluctuation. This process yielded an operationalised 4AT. Diagnostic accuracy of the operationalised 4AT was calculated using sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristics, with pooled estimates for each test domain.

resultsAmong 396 unique participants and 2468 assessments across both studies, pooled 4AT sensitivity and specificity were 0.73 and 0.89, respectively. Overall 4AT performance was consistent across cognitive tertiles (sensitivity: high 0.82, middle 0.73, low 0.71; specificity: high 0.91; middle 0.92; low 0.86).

conclusionsThe operationalised 4AT showed good diagnostic performance in all three levels of baseline cognition. Sensitivity would likely have been higher had clinical information to inform 4AT item 4 been available. Overall, however, the findings support the value of bedside 4AT items in detecting delirium in hospitalised patients across the spectrum of baseline cognition.

Indexed as

CognitionDeliriumDementiaNeuropsychological TestsAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMalePredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesReproducibility of Resultsdeliriumdementiadiagnosisolder people

Identifiers

PMID42341202
PMCPMC13293242

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.