alzhub.org
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.

Home › Research › Clinical safety

Tools to detect delirium superimposed on dementia: a systematic review

Morandi A, McCurley J, Vasilevskis EE, Fick DM, Bellelli G, Lee P, Jackson JC, Shenkin SD et al.. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2012-10-05

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 74 out of 100. Clinical safety

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Objectives To identify valid tools to diagnose delirium superimposed on dementia. Design Systematic review of studies of delirium tools that explicitly included individuals with dementia. Setting Hospital. Participants Studies were included if delirium assessment tools were validated against standard criteria, and the presence of dementia was assessed according to standard criteria that used validated instruments. Measurements PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched for articles in English published between January 1960 and January 2012. Results Nine studies fulfilled the selection criteria. Of 1,569 participants, 401 had dementia, and 50 had delirium superimposed on dementia. Six delirium tools were evaluated. One study using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) with 85% of participants with dementia had high specificity (96-100%) and moderate sensitivity (77%). Two intensive care unit studies that used the CAM for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) reported 100% sensitivity and specificity for delirium in 23 individuals with dementia. One study using electroencephalography reported sensitivity of 67% and specificity of 91% in a population with a 100% prevalence of dementia. No studies examined potential effects of dementia severity or subtype on diagnostic accuracy. Conclusions The evidence base on tools for detection of delirium superimposed on dementia is limited, although some existing tools show promise. Further studies of existing or refined tools with larger samples and more-detailed characterization of dementia are required to address the identification of delirium superimposed on dementia.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 74/100
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 0 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. 43 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 74 of 100. Total 74 of 100.43 of the 58 points we could judge = 74 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for effect reported 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 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 74 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 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 2012 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 3 / 4 1,569 participants
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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 23039270)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 43 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 74 out of 100.
Total 74 / 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

Morandi, A., McCurley, J., Vasilevskis, E. E., Fick, D. M., Bellelli, G., Lee, P., et al. (2012). Tools to detect delirium superimposed on dementia: a systematic review. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04199.x

Vancouver

Morandi A, McCurley J, Vasilevskis EE, Fick DM, Bellelli G, Lee P, et al. Tools to detect delirium superimposed on dementia: a systematic review. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2012. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04199.x. PMID: 23039270.

BibTeX

@article{morandi2012-23039270,
  author  = {Morandi, A. and McCurley, J. and Vasilevskis, E. E. and Fick, D. M. and Bellelli, G. and Lee, P. and Jackson, J. C. and Shenkin, S. D. and others},
  title   = {{Tools to detect delirium superimposed on dementia: a systematic review}},
  journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
  year    = {2012},
  doi     = {10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04199.x},
  pmid    = {23039270},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04199.x}
}

Related studies in Clinical safety

Also tagged “prevalence”

1,224 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,224 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Clinical safety

See all studies in Clinical safety →