MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220691132 · doi:10.1111/jgs.17740

Can we improve delirium prevention and treatment in the emergency department? A systematic review

2022· review· en· W4220691132 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sangil Lee, Hao Chen, Seikei Hibino, Daniel G. Miller, Heather Healy, Jacques Lee, Glenn Arendts, Jin H. Han, Maura Kennedy, Christopher R. Carpenter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsSchwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDeliriumIncidence (geometry)Emergency departmentCochrane LibraryRandomized controlled trialOdds ratioPsychological interventionEmergency medicineMeta-analysisIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background This systematic review was conducted to evaluate any interventions to prevent incident delirium, or shorten the duration of prevalent delirium, in older adults presenting to the emergency department (ED). Methods Health sciences librarian designed electronic searches were conducted from database inception through September 2021. Two authors reviewed studies, and included studies that evaluated interventions for the prevention and/or treatment of delirium and excluded non‐ED studies. The risk of bias (ROB) was evaluated by the Cochrane ROB tool or the Newcastle‐Ottawa (NOS) scale. Meta‐analysis was conducted to estimate a pooled effect of multifactorial programs on delirium prevention. Results Our search strategy yielded 11,900 studies of which 10 met study inclusion criteria. Two RCTs evaluated pharmacologic interventions for delirium prevention; three non‐RCTs employed a multi‐factorial delirium prevention program; three non‐RCTs evaluated regional anesthesia for hip fractures; and one study evaluated the use of Foley catheter, medication exposure, and risk of delirium. Only four studies demonstrated a significant impact on delirium incidence or duration of delirium—one RCT of melatonin reduced the incidence of delirium (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62), one non‐RCT study on a multi‐factorial program decreased inpatient delirium prevalence (41% to 19%) and the other reduced incident delirium (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.61). One case–control study on the use of ED Foley catheters in the ED increased the duration of delirium (proportional OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.3 to 7.4). A pooled odds ratio for three multifactorial programs on delirium prevention was 0.46 (95% CI 0.31–0.68, I 2 = 0). Conclusion Few interventions initiated in the ED were found to consistently reduce the incidence or duration of delirium. Delirium prevention and treatment trials in the ED are still rare and should be prioritized for future research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.612
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations57
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics SocietySame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207