ArticleTherapeutic advances in neurological disorders2026
Current practices in delirium prevention and treatment after acute stroke: results of a multicentre survey.
Article in Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Delirium affects 10-30% of acute stroke patients, is associated with poor outcomes and places a substantial burden on healthcare staff. Evidence-based prevention and treatment strategies are limited, resulting in heterogeneous and poorly standardised delirium management in acute stroke care. Objectives: We aimed to describe real-world delirium management in German and Austrian stroke units (SUs) and to delineate the extent of practice variation in prevention and treatment. Design: We conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey of stroke neurologists working at SUs in Austria and Germany. Methods: The 30-item questionnaire assessed professional background, delirium prevention and pharmacological treatment approaches. Descriptive statistics and exploratory subgroup analyses were performed. Results: Seventy responses from 63 SUs were analysed (median physician SU experience, 14.5 years). Delirium was estimated to affect 20% of patients and was perceived as highly burdensome for both physicians and nurses (median score, 9/10 each). Delirium prevention measures were established in 42 (67%) SUs but routinely applied to all patients in only 12 (19%), mainly due to staffing shortages (nurses, 48%; physicians, 25%). Pharmacological delirium treatment was reported by all respondents. Benzodiazepines were preferred for alcohol withdrawal delirium (60%) and antipsychotics for hyperactive or mixed delirium (59%). α2-Agonists were the most common escalation therapy across these subtypes (46%-67%). Conclusion: Delirium management in German and Austrian SUs is highly heterogeneous, limited by staffing constraints and strongly relies on non-evidence-based pharmacological strategies. These findings highlight critical gaps in care and call for enhanced staffing and stroke-specific trials to inform evidence-based delirium 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.