Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42748492›Full record

SynthesisJMIR medical informatics2026

Prediction Models for In-Hospital Delirium Using Routinely Collected Electronic Health Record Data: Systematic Review.

Hung-Min Huang, Chun-Shun Lu, Geng-Wei Chang, Ming-Hsu Tien, Yu-Kai Hsu

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JMIR medical informatics, 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

5 authors.

Hung-Min HuangInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, Gower Street, London, England, WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom, 44 7570909461.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-4386-5020
Chun-Shun LuDepartment of General Medicine, MacKay Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-4010-6638
Geng-Wei ChangDepartment of General Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-2382-6030
Ming-Hsu TienDepartment of General Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-5565-4181
Yu-Kai HsuDepartment of General Medicine, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-6162-0187

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Delirium is a common and clinically important form of acute in-hospital mental status deterioration. Electronic health record (EHR)-based prediction models may support early identification and targeted prevention, but their methodological quality, validation rigor, and clinical readiness remain uncertain. Objective: This systematic review aimed to synthesize and critically evaluate prediction models for in-hospital delirium developed using routinely collected EHR data, focusing on model characteristics, validation strategies, performance, risk of bias, and clinical applicability. Methods: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to November 11, 2025. Eligible studies developed, validated, or evaluated multivariable prediction models using routinely collected EHR or administrative data to predict acute mental status deterioration during adult hospital admissions. Although eligibility criteria were broad, all included studies operationalized deterioration as delirium. Data extraction was informed by CHARMS (Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies) and TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis) or TRIPOD-artificial intelligence guidance. Model performance, validation, calibration, and implementation features were synthesized narratively. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using PROBAST (Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool). Results: Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. The evidence clustered into 4 overlapping prediction tasks: admission or early-stay risk stratification, perioperative or postoperative prediction, dynamic intensive care unit prediction, and external validation or workflow evaluation of existing tools. Most studies were retrospective cohorts (20/29, 69%) and were conducted in general ward, mixed ward-intensive care unit, intensive care unit, or emergency department settings. Machine learning or hybrid approaches were common (18/29, 62%), but more complex models did not consistently outperform statistical or rule-based approaches. Of 29 studies, internal discrimination was reported in 24 (83%; area under the receiver operating characteristic curve range 0.77-0.97) studies, whereas external discrimination was reported in 12 studies and calibration in 15 studies. Decision curve analysis was reported in 3 studies, and prospective evaluation or workflow integration remained limited. Overall risk of bias was low in 8 studies, unclear in 10 studies, and high in 11 studies, mainly because of analysis-domain limitations. Conclusions: Routinely collected EHR data can support delirium risk prediction across hospital settings, and many models show moderate to high discrimination. However, no single algorithm is ready for routine adoption. The field remains limited by heterogeneous prediction tasks, inconsistent outcome ascertainment, weak calibration and decision-analytic reporting, and insufficient external or prospective evaluation. Future studies should define the intended clinical use case before model development, evaluate calibration and clinical usefulness alongside discrimination, and test models across institutions, time periods, and workflows before deployment.

Indexed as

DeliriumElectronic Health RecordsRoutinely Collected Health DataHospitalizationHumansPrediction AlgorithmsPredictive Learning Modelsclinical decision supportdeliriumelectronic health recordsinpatientsmachine learningPROBASTrisk predictionsystematic reviewTRIPOD

Identifiers

PMID42748492
PMCPMC13581283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.