ArticleCureus2026
Anticholinergic Burden Scoring in Orthogeriatric Patients: A Two-Cycle Quality Improvement Audit.
Article in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnticholinergic burden is relevant to medication review in older surgical patients, but routine documentation may be incomplete.
objectiveThe objective of this study is to compare documented Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden (ACB) assessment before and after a multicomponent quality-improvement intervention.
methodsThis single-centre retrospective quality-improvement audit compared two independent cohorts of surgical patients aged ≥65 years in June 2023 and April 2024. Staff education, posters, and a proforma incorporating ACB and medication-review prompts were introduced between cycles. Process outcomes were compared using Fisher's exact test. The pooled cross-sectional association between ACB and the composite cognitive-screen outcome was exploratory and unadjusted.
resultsSeventy-two patients were included: 33 at baseline and 39 at re-audit. ACB documentation increased from 0/33 (0.0%) to 15/39 (38.5%), an absolute increase of 38.46 percentage points (95% CI 21.35-54.10; p<0.001). Documented medication review increased from 1/33 (3.0%) to 19/39 (48.7%; p<0.001), and documented medication modification from 1/33 (3.0%) to 10/39 (25.6%; p=0.009). ACB-category distributions did not differ significantly (p=0.910). The composite cognitive outcome was present in 16/25 (64.0%) patients with ACB ≥2 and 7/47 (14.9%) with ACB 0-1, corresponding to an unadjusted prevalence ratio of 4.30 (95% CI 2.04-9.04). This association was limited by the small sample, different preoperative cognitive instruments, and absence of confounder adjustment.
conclusionDocumented ACB assessment and medication-review processes increased between cycles, but implementation remained incomplete. A reduction in medication burden or improvement in patient-centred outcomes was not established.
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.