ArticleJournal of the American Geriatrics Society2026
Two Brief Steps, Better Foresight: Cognitive Screening and Adverse Outcomes in Older Adults Admitted From the Emergency Department.
Article in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Who Is Delirium Worse For?Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDelirium predicts adverse outcomes in older emergency department (ED) patients, but many acutely ill patients without delirium have underlying cognitive impairment that goes unrecognized. Whether cognitive impairment screening improves risk prediction beyond delirium remains uncertain. We compared practical bedside screening strategies for delirium, cognitive impairment, or both for predicting 90-day functional decline and mortality in older adults admitted from the ED.
methodsA prospective cohort comprising patients aged ≥ 65 years admitted from the ED of a large hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. Trained professionals screened for delirium using the brief Confusion Assessment Method (bCAM) and for cognitive impairment using the 10-point Cognitive Screener (10-CS). Patients were classified as having normal cognition (bCAM negative, 10-CS > 5), delirium (bCAM positive), or cognitive impairment without delirium (bCAM negative, 10-CS ≤ 5). Blinded investigators assessed decline in basic activities of daily living (ADL) and mortality within 90 days of admission. Fine-Gray models (death as a competing risk) and Cox models estimated associations with outcomes, adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors.
resultsAmong 830 patients (mean age = 80 ± 9 years; women = 47%), 427 (51.5%) had normal cognition, 171 (20.6%) had delirium, and 232 (27.9%) had cognitive impairment without delirium. Among delirium-negative patients with cognitive impairment, 52% had no documented dementia diagnosis or reported memory problems. Compared with normal cognition, cognitive impairment without delirium was associated with 90-day functional ADL decline (sub-HR = 1.60; 95% CI = 1.03-2.49) and mortality (HR = 2.31; 95% CI = 1.18-4.51), with risks similar to those observed in delirium. A staged strategy (bCAM first, then 10-CS if bCAM negative) showed higher discrimination than delirium-only or 10-CS-only screening.
conclusionsCognitive impairment without delirium is common, often unrecognized, and predicts 90-day adverse outcomes in older patients admitted from the ED. A brief staged screening strategy integrating delirium assessment with cognitive impairment testing among delirium-negative patients may enhance early detection of cognitive vulnerability and support care planning.
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.