Delirium prevention and treatment in the emergency department (ED): a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Delirium is a dangerous syndrome of acute brain dysfunction that is common in the emergency department (ED), especially among the geriatric population. Most systematic reviews of interventions for delirium prevention and treatment have focused on inpatient settings. Best practices of effective delirium care in ED settings have not been established. The primary objective of this study is to identify pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions as applied by physicians, nursing staff, pharmacists and other ED personnel to prevent incident delirium and to shorten the severity and duration of prevalent delirium in a geriatric population within the ED. Methods and analysis Searches using subject headings and keywords will be conducted from database inception through June 2020 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsychINFO, CINAHL, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global and Cochrane CENTRAL as well as grey literature. Database searches will not be limited by date or language. Two reviewers will identify studies describing any interventions for delirium prevention and/or treatment in the ED. Disagreements will be settled by a third reviewer. Pooled data analysis will be performed where possible using Review Manager. Risk ratios and weighted difference of means will be used for incidence of delirium and other binary outcomes related to delirium, delirium severity or duration of symptoms, along with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity will be measured by calculating I 2 , and a forest plot will be created. If significant heterogeneity is identified, metaregression is planned using OpenMeta to identify possible sources of heterogeneity. Ethics and dissemination This is a systematic review of previously conducted research; accordingly, it does not constitute human subjects research needing ethics review. This review will be prepared as a manuscript and submitted for publication to a peer-reviewed journal, and the results will be presented at conferences. PROSPERO trial registration number CRD42020169654.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".