Home › Research › Clinical safety
Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients
Burton JK, Craig LE, Yong SQ, Siddiqi N, Teale EA, Woodhouse R, Barugh AJ, Shepherd AM et al.. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2021-07-19
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
There is moderate-certainty evidence regarding the benefit of multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in hospitalised adults, estimated to reduce incidence by 43% compared to usual care. We found no evidence of an effect on mortality. There is emerging evidence that these interventions may reduce hospital length of stay, with a trend towards reduced delirium duration, although the effect on delirium severity remains uncertain. Further research should focus on implementation and detailed analysis of the components of the interventions to support more effective, tailored practice recommendations.
Key findings
- There is moderate-certainty evidence regarding the benefit of multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in hospitalised adults, estimated to reduce incidence by 43% compared to usual care.
- We found no evidence of an effect on mortality.
- There is emerging evidence that these interventions may reduce hospital length of stay, with a trend towards reduced delirium duration, although the effect on delirium severity remains uncertain.
- Further research should focus on implementation and detailed analysis of the components of the interventions to support more effective, tailored practice recommendations.
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Participants22
- Effect size10.5%; 18.4%; 5.2%
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 81/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. 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 47 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 81 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (The Cochrane database of systematic reviews) |
| 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 | 1 / 4 | 22 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 | — / 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 34280303) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 47 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 47 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 81 out of 100. |
| Total | 81 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
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.
APA 7th
Burton, J. K., Craig, L. E., Yong, S. Q., Siddiqi, N., Teale, E. A., Woodhouse, R., et al. (2021). Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd013307.pub2
Vancouver
Burton JK, Craig LE, Yong SQ, Siddiqi N, Teale EA, Woodhouse R, et al. Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2021. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd013307.pub2. PMID: 34280303.
BibTeX
@article{burton2021-34280303,
author = {Burton, J. K. and Craig, L. E. and Yong, S. Q. and Siddiqi, N. and Teale, E. A. and Woodhouse, R. and Barugh, A. J. and Shepherd, A. M. and others},
title = {{Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients}},
journal = {The Cochrane database of systematic reviews},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1002/14651858.cd013307.pub2},
pmid = {34280303},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd013307.pub2}
}