ArticleBrain sciences2022
A Cross-Sectional Survey on the Clinical Management of Emergence Delirium in Adults: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice in Mainland China.
Article in Brain sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nurses' usage of validated tools to assess for delirium in general acute care settings: A scoping review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Review
- Association between VA providers' reported use of care strategies and emergence delirium: a national retrospective cross-sectional survey.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2026Article
- Correlation of preoperative gut microbiota and postoperative delirium in patients undergoing minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Assessing delirium knowledge among health care professionals: findings from a scoping review.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Delirium Diagnosis, Complication Recognition, and Treatment Knowledge among Nurses in an Italian Local Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Study.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEmergence delirium (ED) occurs immediately after emergence from general anesthesia, which may have adverse consequences. This cross-sectional survey assessed Chinese physicians' and nurses' knowledge of, attitudes towards, and practice regarding ED in adults.
methodsElectronic questionnaires were sent to 93 major academic hospitals across mainland China and both attending anesthesiologists and anesthesia nurses were recommended to complete them.
resultsA total of 243 anesthesiologists and 213 anesthesia nurses participated in the survey. Most of the participants considered it a very important issue; however, less than one-third of them routinely assessed ED. In terms of screening tools, anesthesiologists preferred the Confusion Assessment Method, while anesthesia nurses reported using multiple screening tools. Divergence also appeared with regard to the necessity of monitoring the depth of anesthesia. Anesthesiologists considered it only necessary in high-risk patients, while the nurses considered that it should be carried out routinely. No unified treatment strategy nor medication was reported for ED treatment during the recovery period.
conclusionsThis study illustrated that there are high awareness levels among both Chinese anesthesiologists and anesthesia nurses regarding the importance of ED. However, a specific practice in terms of routine delirium assessment, anesthesia depth monitoring, and a standardized treatment algorithm needs to be implemented to improve ED management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.