Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Clinical safety

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

DAGs provide visual representations of assumptions made, and provide an objective approach to appropriate statistical adjustments. Key nodes within all the DAGs included age, dementia, genetic predisposition, hearing and visual impairment, length of stay, malignancy, operative severity, polypharmacy, postoperative perioperative medicine service, preoperative clinic review, sex, social deprivation, urgency, with delirium, frailty, multimorbidity, interaction, morbidity acting as exposures, or outcomes in certain DAGs. DAGs provide a transparent framework for statistical decision-making in observational research. We provide an overview of DAGs using the SNAP-3 DAGs as examples to explain fundamental concepts for developing and using causal diagrams. This overview acknowledges the complexities of exploring clinical relationships and the assumptions that are necessary, providing an opportunity for critique of the relationships described and refinements for future studies.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Swarbrick, C. J., Blake, H. A., Martin, P., Partridge, J. S., & Moppett, I. K. (2025). Directed acyclic graphs to minimise bias and optimise causal inference in SNAP-3: an observational cohort study of frailty, multimorbidity, and delirium in older surgical patients. British Journal of Anaesthesia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2025.04.027

Vancouver

Swarbrick CJ, Blake HA, Martin P, Partridge JS, Moppett IK. Directed acyclic graphs to minimise bias and optimise causal inference in SNAP-3: an observational cohort study of frailty, multimorbidity, and delirium in older surgical patients. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2025.04.027. PMID: 40425394.

BibTeX

@article{swarbrick2025-40425394,
  author  = {Swarbrick, Claire Jane and Blake, Helen Abigail and Martin, Peter and Partridge, Judith S.L. and Moppett, Iain Keith},
  title   = {{Directed acyclic graphs to minimise bias and optimise causal inference in SNAP-3: an observational cohort study of frailty, multimorbidity, and delirium in older surgical patients}},
  journal = {British Journal of Anaesthesia},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.bja.2025.04.027},
  pmid    = {40425394},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2025.04.027}
}

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

Why it matters

This methodological paper describes how directed acyclic graphs were used in the SNAP-3 observational cohort study of frailty, multimorbidity, and delirium in older surgical patients. It provides a framework for statistical decision-making but reports no treatment, cure, or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

How this study scored 55/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 3 of 4; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 4 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 3 of 7; Citations per year 2 of 5; Impact for its field and year 4 of 6; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited 2 of 4; Senior author's track record 2 of 4; Institution's track record 2 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 2 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. Total 55 of 100.55 of 100 points earned45 not earned

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (British Journal of Anaesthesia)
Journal's citation record 3 / 4 British Journal of Anaesthesia: journal h-index 288 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 7 / 12 A cohort study following people over time
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 4 / 5 2025 — within 3 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)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited 3 / 7 Cited 15 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 2 / 5 5.0 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year 4 / 6 Cited 13.1× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 0 / 6 No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited 2 / 4 Cited 15 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record 2 / 4 Last-listed author Iain Keith Moppett: h-index 42 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record 2 / 3 University College London: institution h-index 2,029 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 2 / 3 OpenAlex lists 7 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40425394)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Total 55 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Related studies in Clinical safety

Also tagged “delirium”

858 studies in the library carry the topic tag “delirium”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 858 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Clinical safety

See all studies in Clinical safety →