Home › Research › Clinical safety
Association of postoperative delirium with cognitive outcomes: A meta-analysis
Huang H, Li H, Zhang X, Shi G, Xu M, Ru X, Chen Y, Patel MB et al.. Journal of clinical anesthesia, 2021-09-02
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Main results Eighteen studies were included. Our result showed a significant and medium association between POD and cognitive outcomes after at least 1 month postoperatively (g = 0.61 95% CI 0.43-0.79; I 2 = 65.1%), indicating that patients with POD were associated with worse cognitive outcomes. The association of POD with short- and long-term cognitive impairment were also both significant (short-term: g = 0.46 95% CI 0.24-0.68; I 2 = 53.1%; and long-term: g = 0.82 95% CI 0.57-1.06; I 2 = 57.1%). A multivariate meta-regression suggested that age and measure of delirium were significant sources of heterogeneity. POD was also associated with the significant risk for dementia (OR = 6.08 95% CI 3.80-9.72; I 2 = 0) as well as attention (OR = 1.74 95% CI 1.13-2.68; I 2 = 0), executive (OR = 1.33 95% CI 1.00-1.80; I 2 = 0) and memory impairment (OR = 1.59 95% CI 1.20-2.10; I 2 = 43.0%). Additionally, our results showed that the risk trajectory for cognitive decline associated with POD within five years after surgery revealed exponential growth. Our results showed that POD was significantly associated with worse cognitive outcomes, including short- and long-term cognitive outcomes following surgery.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Huang, H., Li, H., Zhang, X., Shi, G., Xu, M., Ru, X., et al. (2021). Association of postoperative delirium with cognitive outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of clinical anesthesia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2021.110496
Vancouver
Huang H, Li H, Zhang X, Shi G, Xu M, Ru X, et al. Association of postoperative delirium with cognitive outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of clinical anesthesia. 2021. doi:10.1016/j.jclinane.2021.110496. PMID: 34482263.
BibTeX
@article{huang2021-34482263,
author = {Huang, H. and Li, H. and Zhang, X. and Shi, G. and Xu, M. and Ru, X. and Chen, Y. and Patel, M. B. and others},
title = {{Association of postoperative delirium with cognitive outcomes: A meta-analysis}},
journal = {Journal of clinical anesthesia},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1016/j.jclinane.2021.110496},
pmid = {34482263},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2021.110496}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Main results Eighteen studies were included.
- Our result showed a significant and medium association between POD and cognitive outcomes after at least 1 month postoperatively (g = 0.61 95% CI 0.43-0.79; I 2 = 65.1%), indicating that patients with POD were associated with worse cognitive outcomes.
- The association of POD with short- and long-term cognitive impairment were also both significant (short-term: g = 0.46 95% CI 0.24-0.68; I 2 = 53.1%; and long-term: g = 0.82 95% CI 0.57-1.06; I 2 = 57.1%).
- A multivariate meta-regression suggested that age and measure of delirium were significant sources of heterogeneity.
- POD was also associated with the significant risk for dementia (OR = 6.08 95% CI 3.80-9.72; I 2 = 0) as well as attention (OR = 1.74 95% CI 1.13-2.68; I 2 = 0), executive (OR = 1.33 95% CI 1.00-1.80; I 2 = 0) and memory impairment (OR = 1.59 95% CI 1.20-2.10; I 2 = 43.0%).
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Effect size65.1%; 53.1%; 57.1%
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 71/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for sample size and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of clinical anesthesia) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A meta-analysis pooling many studies |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomization is not credited here |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 34482263) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 41 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100. |
| Total | 71 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Clinical safety
Also tagged “palliative”
858 studies in the library carry the topic tag “palliative”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 858 tagged studies.