Identifying Older Adults at Risk of Delirium Following Elective Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postoperative delirium is a common preventable complication experienced by older adults undergoing elective surgery. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we identified prognostic factors associated with the risk of postoperative delirium among older adults undergoing elective surgery. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and AgeLine were searched for articles published between inception and April 21, 2016. A total of 5692 titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate for possible inclusion. Studies using any method for diagnosing delirium were eligible. Two reviewers independently completed all data extraction and quality assessments using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies. Random effects meta-analysis models were used to derive pooled effect estimates. RESULTS: Forty-one studies (9384 patients) reported delirium-related prognostic factors. Among our included studies, the pooled incidence of postoperative delirium was 18.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.3-23.3%, number needed to follow [NNF] = 6). Geriatric syndromes were important predictors of delirium, namely history of delirium (odds ratio [OR] 6.4, 95% CI 2.2-17.9), frailty (OR 4.1, 95% CI 1.4-11.7), cognitive impairment (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.9-3.8), impairment in activities of daily living (ADLs; OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.6-2.6), and impairment in instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs; OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3-2.8). Potentially modifiable prognostic factors such as psychotropic medication use (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.4-3.6) and smoking status (OR 1.8 95% CI 1.3-2.4) were also identified. Caregiver support was associated with lower odds of postoperative delirium (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52-0.91). DISCUSSION: Though caution must be used in interpreting meta-analyses of non-randomized studies due to the potential influence of unmeasured confounding, we identified potentially modifiable prognostic factors including frailty and psychotropic medication use that should be targeted to optimize care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".