MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894882852 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000003402

Incidence and Prevalence of Delirium Subtypes in an Adult ICU: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis*

2018· review· en· W2894882852 on OpenAlexaff
Karla D. Krewulak, Henry T. Stelfox, Jeanna Parsons Leigh, E. Wesley Ely, Kirsten M. Fiest

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteAlberta HealthUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliriumMedicineIncidence (geometry)Meta-analysisPopulationCINAHLCochrane LibraryInternal medicineMEDLINESystematic reviewPediatricsIntensive care medicinePsychiatryPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Use systematic review and meta-analytic methodology to estimate the pooled incidence, prevalence, and proportion of delirium cases for each delirium subtype (hypoactive, hyperactive, and mixed) in an adult ICU population. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PsycINFO databases following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standards from database inception until October 22, 2017, with no restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: We included original research conducted in adults admitted to any medical, surgical, or speciality ICU that reported incidence or prevalence estimates of delirium according to delirium subtype. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted on sample size, population demographics, condition information, and reported delirium estimates. DATA SYNTHESIS: Forty-eight studies (27,342 patients; 4,550 with delirium) with an overall pooled prevalence of 31% (95% CI, 24-41; I = 99%) met inclusion criteria. The pooled incidence (n = 18 studies) of delirium subtypes were hyperactive (4% [95% CI, 2-6]; I = 92%]), hypoactive (11% [95% CI, 8-17; I = 97%]), and mixed (7% [95% CI, 4-11; I = 97%]). The pooled prevalence (n = 31 studies) of delirium subtypes were hyperactive (4% [95% CI, 3-6; I = 94%]), hypoactive (17% [95% CI, 13-22; I = 97%]), and mixed (10% [95% CI, 6-16; I = 99%]). The pooled prevalence of hypoactive delirium in study populations with a similarly high severity of illness or mechanically ventilated was higher (severity of illness: 29% [95% CI, 18-46%; I = 95%], 100% mechanically ventilated: 35% [95% CI, 23-55%; I = 93%]) compared with the pooled prevalence of hypoactive delirium. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant heterogeneity between studies, these data show the majority of delirious ICU patients to have hypoactive delirium, a finding with potential monitoring, management, and prognostic implications. The prevalence of hypoactive delirium varies between-study populations and is higher in patients with greater severity of illness.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.048
Bibliometrics0.0140.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations393
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207