Evidence mapPaperPMID 36153750Full record

SynthesisAge and ageing2022

How do predisposing factors differ between delirium motor subtypes? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Erica S Ghezzi, Danielle Greaves, Monique S Boord, Daniel Davis, Sara Knayfati, Jack M Astley, Rhianna L S Sharman, Stephanie I Goodwin, Hannah A D Keage

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Age and ageing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Why Are Men More Restrained in the Intensive Care Unit?Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Erica S GhezziCognitive Ageing and Impairment Neurosciences Laboratory, Justice and Society, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9122-6125
Danielle GreavesCognitive Ageing and Impairment Neurosciences Laboratory, Justice and Society, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Monique S BoordCognitive Ageing and Impairment Neurosciences Laboratory, Justice and Society, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Daniel DavisMRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing Unit at UCL, London, UK.
Sara KnayfatiCognitive Ageing and Impairment Neurosciences Laboratory, Justice and Society, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Jack M AstleyCognitive Ageing and Impairment Neurosciences Laboratory, Justice and Society, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Rhianna L S SharmanCognitive Ageing and Impairment Neurosciences Laboratory, Justice and Society, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Stephanie I GoodwinCognitive Ageing and Impairment Neurosciences Laboratory, Justice and Society, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Hannah A D KeageCognitive Ageing and Impairment Neurosciences Laboratory, Justice and Society, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
University of South Australia · AUMRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00019/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_00019/2Medical Research Council MC_UU_00019/4Wellcome Trust 107467/Z/15/ZWellcome Trust WT107467
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDelirium is a common neurocognitive disorder in hospitalised older adults with vast negative consequences. The predominant method of subtyping delirium is by motor activity profile into hypoactive, hyperactive and mixed groups.

objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis investigated how predisposing factors differ between delirium motor subtypes.

methodsDatabases (Medline, PsycINFO, Embase) were systematically searched for studies reporting predisposing factors (prior to delirium) for delirium motor subtypes. A total of 61 studies met inclusion criteria (N = 14,407, mean age 73.63 years). Random-effects meta-analyses synthesised differences between delirium motor subtypes relative to 22 factors.

resultsHypoactive cases were older, had poorer cognition and higher physical risk scores than hyperactive cases and were more likely to be women, living in care homes, taking more medications, with worse functional performance and history of cerebrovascular disease than all remaining subtypes. Hyperactive cases were younger than hypoactive and mixed subtypes and were more likely to be men, with better cognition and lower physical risk scores than all other subtypes. Those with no motor subtype (unable to be classified) were more likely to be women and have better functional performance. Effect sizes were small.

conclusionsImportant differences in those who develop motor subtypes of delirium were shown prior to delirium occurrence. We provide robust quantitative evidence for a common clinical assumption that indices of frailty (institutional living, cognitive and functional impairment) are seen more in hypoactive patients. Motor subtypes should be measured across delirium research. Motor subtyping has great potential to improve the clinical risk assessment and management of delirium.

Indexed as

DeliriumAgedFemaleHumansMalePsychomotor AgitationRisk AssessmentRisk Factorshyperactivehypoactivemixedolder peoplerisk factorsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36153750
PMCPMC9509667
OpenAlexW4297200928

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.