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 79 out of 100. Clinical safety

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background Delirium is a complex neuropsychiatric syndrome that is common among elderly inpatients. It has been associated with increased mortality, longer hospital stays, cognitive and functional decline and increased institutionalisation rates. Multicomponent interventions, a series of non-pharmacological strategies frequently handled by nursing staff, might be useful for prevention. Objectives To assess the efficacy of multicomponent interventions in preventing incident delirium in the elderly. Methods A systematic review of randomised trials was undertaken. Two independent reviewers performed iterative literature searches in seven databases without language restrictions. Grey literature repositories were considered as well. The quality of included trials was assessed by using the criteria established by the Cochrane Collaboration. When possible, data were synthesised into a meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed using the χ2 and I2 tests. Findings A total of 21,788 citations were screened, and seven studies of diverse quality were included in the review, comprising 1,691 participants. Multicomponent interventions significantly reduced incident delirium (relative risk [RR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-0.85, P<0.001) and accidental falls during the hospitalisation (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.21, 0.72, P=0.003), without evidence of differential effectiveness according to ward type or dementia rates. Non-significant reductions in delirium duration, hospital stay and mortality were found as well. Interpretation Multicomponent interventions are effective in preventing incident delirium among elderly inpatients. Effects seemed to be stable among different settings. Due to the limited amount of data, potential benefits in survival need to be confirmed in further studies. Future research should be aimed at contrasting different multicomponent programmes to select the most useful interventions.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 79/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 12 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 3 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. 46 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 79 of 100. Total 79 of 100.46 of the 58 points we could judge = 79 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. 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 46 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 79 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Age and ageing)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 12 / 12 A systematic review of all the studies on the question
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 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 3 / 4 1,691 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 — / 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 25424450)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 46 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 46 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 79 out of 100.
Total 79 / 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. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Martinez, F., Tobar, C., & Hill, N. (2015). Preventing delirium: should non-pharmacological, multicomponent interventions be used? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Age and ageing. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afu173

Vancouver

Martinez F, Tobar C, Hill N. Preventing delirium: should non-pharmacological, multicomponent interventions be used? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Age and ageing. 2015. doi:10.1093/ageing/afu173. PMID: 25424450.

BibTeX

@article{martinez2015-25424450,
  author  = {Martinez, F. and Tobar, C. and Hill, N.},
  title   = {{Preventing delirium: should non-pharmacological, multicomponent interventions be used? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature}},
  journal = {Age and ageing},
  year    = {2015},
  doi     = {10.1093/ageing/afu173},
  pmid    = {25424450},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afu173}
}

Related studies in Clinical safety

Similar studies

More on Clinical safety

See all studies in Clinical safety →