Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38757369›Full record

SynthesisAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2024

Delirium detection in the emergency department: A diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis of history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and screening instruments.

Christopher R Carpenter, Sangil Lee, Maura Kennedy, Glenn Arendts, Linda Schnitker, Debra Eagles, Simon Mooijaart, Susan Fowler, Michelle Doering, Michael A LaMantia and 2 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Risk factors and risk stratification approaches for delirium screening: A Geriatric Emergency Department Guidelines 2.0 systematic review.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Effects of a Geriatric Emergency Department Multidisciplinary Intervention on Functional Status and Quality of Life: A Pre/Post Cohort Study.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026
    Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Observational
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

12 authors.

Christopher R CarpenterMayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2603-7157
Sangil LeeUniversity of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Maura KennedyHarvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Glenn ArendtsMedical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Linda SchnitkerBolton Clarke Research Institute, Bolton Clarke School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Debra EaglesUniversity of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Simon MooijaartDepartment of Internal Medicine, Section of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Susan FowlerUniversity of Connecticut Health Sciences, Farmington, Connecticut, USA.
Michelle DoeringWashington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Michael A LaMantiaPortland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Jin H HanGeriatric Research Education and Clinical Center (GRECC), Tennessee Valley Healthcare Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0384-210X
Shan W LiuDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5602-3717

Funding

Geriatrics Emergency care Applied Research Network 2.1 - AdvanCing and Expanding Dementia care (GEAR 2.1 - ACED)R33AG069822 · NIA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI Ula Y Hwang, MANISH N SHAH · 2023 to 2026
$5.3M
Gary and Mary West Foundation and John A. Hartford FoundationNIA NIH HHS R33 AG069822
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionGeriatric emergency department (ED) guidelines emphasize timely identification of delirium. This article updates previous diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews of history, physical examination, laboratory testing, and ED screening instruments for the diagnosis of delirium as well as test-treatment thresholds for ED delirium screening.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review to quantify the diagnostic accuracy of approaches to identify delirium. Studies were included if they described adults aged 60 or older evaluated in the ED setting with an index test for delirium compared with an acceptable criterion standard for delirium. Data were extracted and studies were reviewed for risk of bias. When appropriate, we conducted a meta-analysis and estimated delirium screening thresholds.

resultsFull-text review was performed on 55 studies and 27 were included in the current analysis. No studies were identified exploring the accuracy of findings on history or laboratory analysis. While two studies reported clinicians accurately rule in delirium, clinician gestalt is inadequate to rule out delirium. We report meta-analysis on three studies that quantified the accuracy of the 4 A's Test (4AT) to rule in (pooled positive likelihood ratio [LR+] 7.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.7-20.7) and rule out (pooled negative likelihood ratio [LR-] 0.18, 95% CI 0.09-0.34) delirium. We also conducted meta-analysis of two studies that quantified the accuracy of the Abbreviated Mental Test-4 (AMT-4) and found that the pooled LR+ (4.3, 95% CI 2.4-7.8) was lower than that observed for the 4AT, but the pooled LR- (0.22, 95% CI 0.05-1) was similar. Based on one study the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) is the superior instrument to rule in delirium. The calculated test threshold is 2% and the treatment threshold is 11%.

conclusionsThe quantitative accuracy of history and physical examination to identify ED delirium is virtually unexplored. The 4AT has the largest quantity of ED-based research. Other screening instruments may more accurately rule in or rule out delirium. If the goal is to rule in delirium then the CAM-ICU or brief CAM or modified CAM for the ED are superior instruments, although the accuracy of these screening tools are based on single-center studies. To rule out delirium, the Delirium Triage Screen is superior based on one single-center study.

Indexed as

DeliriumEmergency Service, HospitalGeriatric AssessmentPhysical ExaminationAgedAged, 80 and overHumansMedical History TakingMiddle AgedSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID38757369
PMCPMC12994108

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.