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 69 out of 100. Prevention and risk

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

It is associated with increases in mortality, physical morbidity, length of hospital stay, institutionalisation and costs to healthcare providers. Main results Six studies with a total of 833 participants were identified for inclusion. In logistic regression analyses adjusting for pre fracture dementia and Activities of Daily Living impairment, there was no reduction in effect size, OR 0.6, but this no longer remained significant [95% CI 0.3,1.3]. There was also no significant difference in cumulative delirium incidence between treatment and control groups in a sub-group of 50 patients with dementia (RR 0.9 [95% CI 0.59, 1.36]).

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

APA 7th

Siddiqi, N., Stockdale, R., Britton, A. M., & Holmes, J. (2007). Interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised patients. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd005563.pub2

Vancouver

Siddiqi N, Stockdale R, Britton AM, Holmes J. Interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised patients. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2007. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005563.pub2. PMID: 17443600.

BibTeX

@article{siddiqi2007-17443600,
  author  = {Siddiqi, N. and Stockdale, R. and Britton, A. M. and Holmes, J.},
  title   = {{Interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised patients}},
  journal = {The Cochrane database of systematic reviews},
  year    = {2007},
  doi     = {10.1002/14651858.cd005563.pub2},
  pmid    = {17443600},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd005563.pub2}
}

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

In six studies with 833 participants, interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised patients did not show a significant reduction in delirium after adjusting for pre-fracture dementia and Activities of Daily Living impairment. There was also no significant difference in delirium incidence in a subgroup of 50 patients with dementia.

Study details

How this study scored 69/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 9 of 10; Journal's citation record 3 of 4; Study design 12 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 3 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 5 of 7; Citations per year 3 of 5; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here 1 of 6; Still being cited 1 of 4; Senior author's track record 3 of 4; Institution's track record 1 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 1 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 65 of the 94 points it could be judged on, which is 69 of 100. Total 69 of 100.65 of the 94 points we could judge = 69 of 100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. We have no data on impact for its field and year, so that was left out: it earned 65 of the 94 points we could judge it on, which is 69 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 9 / 10 Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (The Cochrane database of systematic reviews)
Journal's citation record 3 / 4 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: journal h-index 468 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 12 / 12 A systematic review of all the studies on the question (from PubMed type “Systematic Review”)
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 2007 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 2 / 4 833 participants
Effect reported 3 / 3 Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here
Times cited 5 / 7 Cited 280 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 3 / 5 13.3 citations a year over 21 year(s) since 2007
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 1 / 6 Cited by 2 other studies in this library
Still being cited 1 / 4 Cited 7 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record 3 / 4 Last-listed author John Holmes: h-index 54 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record 1 / 3 University of Leeds: institution h-index 950 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 1 / 3 OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 2 countries
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 17443600)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 65 / 94 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 65 of the 94 points we could judge it on is 69 out of 100.
Total 69 / 100 —

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

Read the original

May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Later studies that cite this one

2 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.

Related studies in Prevention and risk

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 Prevention and risk

See all studies in Prevention and risk →