MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127900700 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000005028

A Core Outcome Set for Research Evaluating Interventions to Prevent and/or Treat Delirium in Critically Ill Adults: An International Consensus Study (Del-COrS)

2021· article· en· W3127900700 on OpenAlexafffund
Louise Rose, Lisa Burry, Meera Agar, Noll L. Campbell, Mike Clarke, Jacques Lee, John C. Marshall, John W. Devlin, Bronagh Blackwood, Dale M. Needham, Najma Siddiqi, Valérie Page

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalSinai Health SystemUniversity of TorontoSchwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine InstituteMount Sinai Hospital
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthQueen's UniversityCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsMedicineCritically illDeliriumIntensive care medicineOutcome (game theory)Psychological interventionCore (optical fiber)Psychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Delirium in critically ill adults is highly prevalent and has multiple negative consequences. To-date, trials of interventions to prevent or treat delirium report heterogenous outcomes. To develop international consensus among key stakeholders for a core outcome set for future trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in critically ill adults. DESIGN: Core outcome set development, as recommended by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Handbook. Methods of generating items for the core outcome set included a systematic review and qualitative interviews with ICU survivors and family members. Consensus methods include a two-round web-based Delphi process and a face-to-face meeting using nominal group technique methods. SUBJECTS: International representatives from three stakeholder groups: 1) clinical researchers, 2) ICU interprofessional clinicians, and 3) ICU survivors and family members. SETTING: Telephone interviews, web-based surveys, and a face-to-face consensus meeting held at the 2019 European Delirium Association's annual meeting in Edinburgh, Scotland. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Qualitative interviews with 24 ICU survivors and family members identified 36 potential outcomes; six were additional to the 97 identified from the systematic review. After item reduction, 32 outcomes were presented in Delphi Round 1; 179 experts participated, 38 ICU survivors/family members (21%), 100 clinicians (56%), 41 researchers (23%). Three additional outcomes were added to Round 2; 134 Round 1 participants (75%) completed it. Upon conclusion of the consensus building processes, the final core outcome set comprised seven outcomes: delirium occurrence (including prevalence or incidence); delirium severity; time to delirium resolution; health-related quality of life; emotional distress (i.e., anxiety, depression, acute and posttraumatic stress); cognition (including memory); and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This core outcome set, endorsed by the American and Australian Delirium Societies and European Delirium Association, is recommended for future clinical trials evaluating delirium prevention or treatment interventions in critically ill adults.

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)0.444
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.422
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4440.422
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.015
Bibliometrics0.0180.011
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0040.015
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.380
GPT teacher head0.577
Teacher spread0.196 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations67
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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