MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980713514 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.119.025015

Occurrence Rate of Delirium in Acute Stroke Settings

2019· review· en· W2980713514 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert Shaw, Graham Walker, Emma Elliott, Terence J. Quinn

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliriumMedicineMeta-analysisStroke (engine)ConfusionIncidence (geometry)LimitingSubgroup analysisPublication biasIntensive care medicineEpidemiologyAcute strokeEmergency medicineInternal medicinePediatricsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Purpose— Delirium is associated with increased mortality, length of stay, and poor functional outcome following critical illness. The epidemiology of delirium in stroke is poorly described. We sought to collate evidence around occurrence (incidence or prevalence) of delirium in acute stroke. Methods— We searched multiple cross-disciplinary electronic databases using a prespecified search strategy, complemented by hand searching. Eligible studies described delirium in acute (first 6 weeks) stroke. We compared delirium occurrence using random-effects models to describe summary estimates. We assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa tool, incorporating this in sensitivity analyses. We performed subgroup analyses for delirium diagnostic method (confusion assessment method scoring, clinical diagnosis, other), duration and timing of delirium assessment (>1 or <1 week), and performed meta-regression based on the year of publication. Results— Of 8822 titles, we included 32 papers (6718 participants) in the quantitative analysis. Summary estimate for occurrence of delirium was 25% (95% CI, 20%–30%; moderate quality evidence). Limiting to studies at low risk of bias (22 studies, 4422 participants), the occurrence rate was 23% (95% CI, 17%–28%). Subgroup summary estimates suggest that delirium occurrence may vary with assessment method: confusion assessment method, 21% (95% CI, 16%–27%); clinical diagnosis, 27% (95% CI, 19%–38%); other, 32% (95% CI, 22%–43%) but not with duration and timing of assessment. Meta-regression suggested decline in occurrence of delirium comparing historical to more recent studies (slope, 0.03 [SE, 0.004]; P <0.0001). Conclusions— Delirium is common, affecting 1 in 4 acute stroke patients. Reported rates of delirium may be dependent on assessment method. Our estimate of delirium occurrence could be used for audit, to plan intervention studies, and inform clinical practice. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ . Unique identifier: CRD42015029251.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.125
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.125
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.013
Bibliometrics0.0130.012
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations113
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207