Home › Research › Clinical safety
Delirium Screening: A Systematic Review of Delirium Screening Tools in Hospitalized Patients
De J, Wand AP.. The Gerontologist, 2015-11-05
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Delirium occurs commonly in hospitalized older patients but is poorly recognized. Although there are a plethora of validated delirium screening tools, it is unclear which tool best suits particular populations. Purpose To evaluate validation studies of delirium screening tools in non-critically ill hospital inpatients and provide guidance on the choice of screening tool. Methods The MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsychInfo databases were searched for studies comparing delirium bedside screening tools with either the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual or International Classification of Diseases defined diagnosis of delirium in hospital inpatients. Information was also drawn from conference proceedings and discussion with delirium researchers. Results Thirty-one studies describing 21 delirium screening tools were included in the systematic review. The majority of studies were conducted across a broad range of inpatient settings internationally in elderly inpatients, including patients with dementia but most excluded nonnative language speakers. Implications The Confusion Assessment Method was the most widely used instrument to identify delirium, however, specific training is required to ensure optimum performance. The Delirium Rating Scale and its revised version performed best in the psychogeriatric population but requires an operator with psychiatric training. The Nurses' Delirium Screening Checklist appears best suited to the surgical and recovery room setting. The Single Question in Delirium shows promise in oncology patients. The Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale, while demonstrating good measures of validity in the surgical and palliative care setting, may be better used a measure of delirium severity. The 4As Test performed well when delirium was superimposed on dementia, but it requires further study.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
De, J., & Wand, A. P. (2015). Delirium Screening: A Systematic Review of Delirium Screening Tools in Hospitalized Patients. The Gerontologist. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnv100
Vancouver
De J, Wand AP. Delirium Screening: A Systematic Review of Delirium Screening Tools in Hospitalized Patients. The Gerontologist. 2015. doi:10.1093/geront/gnv100. PMID: 26543179.
BibTeX
@article{de2015-26543179,
author = {De, J. and Wand, A. P.},
title = {{Delirium Screening: A Systematic Review of Delirium Screening Tools in Hospitalized Patients}},
journal = {The Gerontologist},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1093/geront/gnv100},
pmid = {26543179},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnv100}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Thirty-one studies describing 21 delirium screening tools were included in the systematic review.
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 64/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported 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 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The Gerontologist) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 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 | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 26543179) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 37 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100. |
| Total | 64 / 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.