SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
Prediction models for post-stroke delirium: a systematic review with an exploratory meta-analysis of predictors.
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
Objective: To systematically identify and synthesize predictors of post-stroke delirium (PSD) derived from existing prediction models, and to assess the methodological quality of these studies using PROBAST. Methods: A comprehensive systematic search was conducted in nine databases from inception to April 2026. Studies developing or validating prediction models for PSD were included. Data extraction was guided by the CHARMS checklist. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Meta-analysis was performed to pool the effect sizes of predictors and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: Sixteen studies (24 models) with sample sizes ranging from 100 to 14,475 were included. Model discrimination was moderate to good, with reported AUC values ranged from 0.72 to 0.94. The meta-analytic pooled AUC was 0.83 (95% Confidence interval: 0.81-0.85). Age, NIHSS (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, visual impairment, and infection were identified as common significant predictors. PROBAST assessment revealed a high overall risk of bias in all studies, primarily due to methodological shortcomings in the analysis domain. Calibration was assessed in six studies with acceptable performance, whereas clinical utility was rarely evaluated. Conclusion: This study highlights several important predictors of PSD. However, due to the high risk of bias, the reliability of existing models remains uncertain. Although the pooled AUC of 0.84 suggests moderate to good discrimination, its performance in individual clinical settings may vary markedly. Future studies should adhere to unified PSD diagnosis criteria, employ robust validation strategies, and explore advanced modeling techniques to improve model reliability and clinical utility.
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.