MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362593724 · doi:10.1097/cce.0000000000000884

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

2023· article· en· W4362593724 on OpenAlexaffabout
Louise Rose, Bronagh Blackwood, Dale M. Needham, John W. Devlin, Mike Clarke, Lisa Burry

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Explorations · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliriumDistressPsychological interventionAnxietyDASSMedicineCognitionPsychiatryTraumatic stressClinical psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To gain consensus on measurement methods for outcomes (delirium occurrence, severity, time to resolution, mortality, health-related quality of life [HrQoL], emotional distress including anxiety, depression, acute stress, and post-traumatic stress disorder, and cognition) of our Core Outcome Set (COS) for trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in critically ill adults. DESIGN: International consensus process. SETTING: Three virtual meetings (April 2021). PATIENTS/SUBJECTS: Critical illness survivors/family, clinicians, and researchers from six Countries. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Measures (selected based on instrument validity, existing recommendations, and feasibility) and measurement time horizons were discussed. Participants voted on instruments and measurement timing (a priori consensus threshold ≥ 70%). Eighteen stakeholders (28% ICU survivors/family members) participated. We achieved consensus on the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist to measure delirium occurrence and delirium resolution (100%), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for emotional distress (71%), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Blind for cognition (83%). We did not achieve consensus on EQ-5D five-level for HrQoL (69%) or its measurement at 6 months. We also did not achieve consensus on the Impact of Event Scale (IES)-Revised or IES-6 for post-traumatic stress (65%) or on measurement instruments for delirium severity incorporating delirium-related emotional distress. We were unable to gain consensus on when to commence and when to discontinue assessing for delirium occurrence and time to resolution, when to determine mortality. We gained consensus that emotional distress and cognition should be measured up to 12 months from hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus was reached on measurement instruments for four of seven outcomes in the COS for delirium prevention or treatment trials for critically ill adults. Further work is required to validate instruments for delirium severity that include delirium-related emotional distress.

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)0.479
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.408
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4790.408
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.023
Bibliometrics0.0130.010
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0120.015
Research integrity0.0080.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.570
GPT teacher head0.586
Teacher spread0.016 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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