Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Diagnostic test accuracy of a novel smartphone application for the assessment of attention deficits in delirium in older hospitalised patients: a prospective cohort study protocol
Rutter LM, Nouzova E, Stott DJ, Weir CJ, Assi V, Barnett JH, Clarke C, Duncan N et al.. BMC geriatrics, 2018-09-17
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Measures of the accuracy of DelApp will include sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under the ROC curve. We plan repeat assessments on up to 4 occasions in a purposive subsample of 30 patients (15 delirium, 15 no delirium) to examine changes over time. Discussion This study evaluates the diagnostic test accuracy of a novel smartphone test for delirium in a representative cohort of older hospitalised patients, including those with dementia. DelApp has the potential to be a convenient, objective method of improving delirium assessment for older people in acute care. Trial registration Clinical trials.gov, NCT02590796 .
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Rutter, L. M., Nouzova, E., Stott, D. J., Weir, C. J., Assi, V., Barnett, J. H., et al. (2018). Diagnostic test accuracy of a novel smartphone application for the assessment of attention deficits in delirium in older hospitalised patients: a prospective cohort study protocol. BMC geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-0901-5
Vancouver
Rutter LM, Nouzova E, Stott DJ, Weir CJ, Assi V, Barnett JH, et al. Diagnostic test accuracy of a novel smartphone application for the assessment of attention deficits in delirium in older hospitalised patients: a prospective cohort study protocol. BMC geriatrics. 2018. doi:10.1186/s12877-018-0901-5. PMID: 30223771.
BibTeX
@article{rutter2018-30223771,
author = {Rutter, L. M. and Nouzova, E. and Stott, D. J. and Weir, C. J. and Assi, V. and Barnett, J. H. and Clarke, C. and Duncan, N. and others},
title = {{Diagnostic test accuracy of a novel smartphone application for the assessment of attention deficits in delirium in older hospitalised patients: a prospective cohort study protocol}},
journal = {BMC geriatrics},
year = {2018},
doi = {10.1186/s12877-018-0901-5},
pmid = {30223771},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-0901-5}
}
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
- Measures of the accuracy of DelApp will include sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under the ROC curve.
- We plan repeat assessments on up to 4 occasions in a purposive subsample of 30 patients (15 delirium, 15 no delirium) to examine changes over time.
- Discussion This study evaluates the diagnostic test accuracy of a novel smartphone test for delirium in a representative cohort of older hospitalised patients, including those with dementia.
- DelApp has the potential to be a convenient, objective method of improving delirium assessment for older people in acute care.
- Trial registration Clinical trials.gov, NCT02590796 .
Study details
- Study designcase-control study
- Participants500
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 64/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a case-control study. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / blinded 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 multi-centre 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 (BMC geriatrics) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 6 / 12 | A case-control study |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 500 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 30223771) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| 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 Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “prospective-cohort”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prospective-cohort”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.