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 66 out of 100. Clinical safety

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Objectives Based on a multifactorial model of delirium, to compare the types and magnitude of pre- and intraoperative predisposing factors for incident delirium in a stratified sample of individuals with and without preoperative dementia undergoing acute hip fracture repair. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Academic medical center. Participants Four hundred twenty-five individuals with acute hip fracture and without delirium (mean age 80.2 ± 6.8, 73.2% female, 33.1% with probable dementia) admitted to a multidisciplinary hip fracture repair service. Measurements A research nurse assessed each participant for delirium based on the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) before study enrollment and from the second postoperative day until hospital discharge. Results The incidence of delirium was higher in the group with probable dementia (56%) than in the group without dementia (26%) (P < .001). In the group without dementia (n = 284), age (odds ratio (OR) = 1.07, 95% CI = 1.02-1.13), male sex (OR = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.40-5.64), body mass index (OR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.86-0.99), number of medical comorbidities (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.01-1.32), and duration of surgery longer than 2 hours (OR = 2.53, 95% CI = 1.20-4.88) were independently associated with postoperative delirium. In the group with probable dementia, only the lag time from the emergency department to operating room was significantly associated (OR = 2.83, 95% CI = 1.24-2.25) with delirium. Conclusion Preoperative determination of dementia status is important for risk stratification for incident delirium after acute hip fracture repair surgery because types and magnitude of predisposing risk factors for postoperative delirium substantially differ based on preoperative dementia status.

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

APA 7th

Lee, H. B., Mears, S. C., Rosenberg, P. B., Leoutsakos, J. M., Gottschalk, A., & Sieber, F. E. (2011). Predisposing factors for postoperative delirium after hip fracture repair in individuals with and without dementia. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03725.x

Vancouver

Lee HB, Mears SC, Rosenberg PB, Leoutsakos JM, Gottschalk A, Sieber FE. Predisposing factors for postoperative delirium after hip fracture repair in individuals with and without dementia. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2011. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03725.x. PMID: 22188077.

BibTeX

@article{lee2011-22188077,
  author  = {Lee, H. B. and Mears, S. C. and Rosenberg, P. B. and Leoutsakos, J. M. and Gottschalk, A. and Sieber, F. E.},
  title   = {{Predisposing factors for postoperative delirium after hip fracture repair in individuals with and without dementia}},
  journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
  year    = {2011},
  doi     = {10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03725.x},
  pmid    = {22188077},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03725.x}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 66/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 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 left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 38 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 66 of 100. Total 66 of 100.38 of the 58 points we could judge = 66 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for 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 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 66 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
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 1 / 5 2011 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 2 / 4 284 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 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 22188077)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 38 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 66 out of 100.
Total 66 / 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 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 →