ArticleAge and ageing2026
Diagnostic test accuracies of 4AT items are consistent across the range of baseline cognition: results from two prospective studies.
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.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.