Delirium screening tools: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Liu Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7458233 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Delirium screening tools: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Liu YuJuan Y Zhang Qian Q Zhao Yayun Y Gao Zhuying Z Wei Zhengyong Z Guo Ziqi Z Chen Meixi M Zhang Qing Q Yang Xuemei X
Medicine 20200801 35
<h4>Background</h4>Delirium is a frequent form of acute brain dysfunction in mechanically ventilated patients. Screening tools have been developed to identify delirium, but it is unclear which tool is the most accurate. Therefore, we provide a protocol of systematic evaluation to assess the accuracy of delirium screening tools in mechanically ventilated patients.<h4>Methods</h4>PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library will be searched. Studies involving mechanically ventilated patients ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Language disorder is one of the most prevalent developmental disorders and is associated with long-term sequelae. However, routine screening is still controversial and is not universally part of early childhood health surveillance. Evidence concerning the detection accuracy, benefits, and harms of screening for language disorders remains inadequate, as shown in a previous review. In October 2020, a systematic review was conducted to investigate the accuracy of available screening tools and the potential sources of variability. A literature search was conducted using CINAHL Plus, ComDisCome, PsycInfo, PsycArticles, ERIC, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. Studies describing, developing, or validating screening tools for language disorder under the age of 6 were included. QUADAS-2 was used to evaluate risk of bias in individual studies. Meta-analyses were performed on the reported accuracy of the screening tools examined. The performance of the screening tools was explored by plotting hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curves. The effects of the proxy used in defining language disorders, the test administrators, the screening-diagnosis interval and age of screening on screening accuracy were investigated by meta-regression. Of the 2,366 articles located, 47 studies involving 67 screening tools were included. About one-third of the tests (35.4%) achieved at least fair accuracy, while only a small proportion (13.8%) achieved good accuracy. HSROC curves revealed a remarkable variation in sensitivity and specificity for the three major types of screening, which used the child's actual language ability, clinical markers, and both as the proxy, respectively. None of these three types of screening tools achieved good accuracy. Meta-regression showed that tools using the child's actual language as the proxy demonstrated better sensitivity than that of clinical markers. Tools using long screening-diagnosis intervals had a lower sensitivity than those using short screening-diagnosis intervals. Parent report showed a level of accuracy comparable to that of those administered by trained examiners. Screening tools used under and above 4yo appeared to have similar sensitivity and specificity. In conclusion, there are still gaps between the available screening tools for language disorders and the adoption of these tools in population screening. Future tool development can focus on maximizing accuracy and identifying metrics that are sensitive to the dynamic nature of language development.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=210505, PROSPERO: CRD42020210505.
| S-EPMC8904415 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAmblyopia is an important public health concern associated with functional vision loss and detrimental impact on the physical and mental well-being of children. The gold standard for diagnosis of amblyogenic conditions currently involves screening by orthoptists and/or ophthalmologists. The bloom of technology enables the use of home-based screening tools to detect these conditions at an early stage by the layperson in community, which could reduce the burden of screening in the community, especially during restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we propose a systematic review aiming to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of home-based screening tools compared with the existing gold standard.Methods and analysisWe aim to search for studies involving home-based screening tools for amblyopia among children aged under 18 years. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Level 4 evidence and above will be included, without language or time restrictions. The following platforms will be searched from inception to 31 August 2021: PubMed, Medline, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection and Clinicaltrials.gov. Two independent reviewers will identify studies for inclusion based on a screening questionnaire. The search and screening will start on 14 August 2021 until 1 October 2021. We aim to complete our data analysis by 30 November 2021. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool for diagnostic accuracy studies only. Our primary outcome measure is the diagnostic accuracy of home-based screening tools, while secondary outcome measures include validity, feasibility, reproducibility and cost-effectiveness, where available.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not necessary as no primary data will be collected. The findings will be disseminated through presentations at scientific meetings and peer-reviewed journal publication.Prospero registration numberCRD42021233511.
| S-EPMC8404433 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Delirium is a frequent occurring complication in surgical patients. Nevertheless, a scientific work-up of the clinical relevance of delirium after intracranial surgery is lacking. We conducted a systematic review (CRD42020166656) to evaluate the current diagnostic work-up, incidence, risk factors and health outcomes of delirium in this population. Five databases (Embase, Medline, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central) were searched from inception through March 31st, 2021. Twenty-four studies (5589 patients) were included for qualitative analysis and twenty-one studies for quantitative analysis (5083 patients). Validated delirium screening tools were used in 70% of the studies, consisting of the Confusion Assessment Method (intensive care unit) (45%), Delirium Observation Screening Scale (5%), Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (10%), Neelon and Champagne Confusion Scale (5%) and Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (5%). Incidence of post-operative delirium after intracranial surgery was 19%, ranging from 12 to 26% caused by variation in clinical features and delirium assessment methods. Meta-regression for age and gender did not show a correlation with delirium. We present an overview of risk factors and health outcomes associated with the onset of delirium. Our review highlights the need of future research on delirium in neurosurgery, which should focus on optimizing diagnosis and assessing prognostic significance and management.
| S-EPMC8827408 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This review aimed to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of shared decision-making (SDM) tools for cancer screening and explored the preferences of vulnerable people and clinicians regarding the specific characteristics of the SDM tools. A mixed-method convergent segregated approach was employed, which involved an independent synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data. Articles were systematically selected and screened, resulting in the inclusion and critical appraisal of 55 studies. Results from the meta-analysis revealed that SDM tools were more effective for improving knowledge, reducing decisional conflict, and increasing screening intentions among vulnerable populations compared to non-vulnerable populations. Subgroup analyses showed minimal heterogeneity for decisional conflict outcomes measured over a six-month period. Insights from the qualitative findings revealed the complexities of clinicians' and vulnerable populations' preferences for an SDM tool in cancer screening. Vulnerable populations highly preferred SDM tools with relevant information, culturally tailored content, and appropriate communication strategies. Clinicians, on the other hand, highly preferred tools that can be easily integrated into their medical systems for efficient use and can effectively guide their practice for cancer screening while considering patients' values. Considering the complexities of patients' and clinicians' preferences in SDM tool characteristics, fostering collaboration between patients and clinicians during the creation of an SDM tool for cancer screening is essential. This collaboration may ensure effective communication about the specific tool characteristics that best support the needs and preferences of both parties.
| S-EPMC10417450 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To identify valid tools to diagnose delirium superimposed on dementia. DESIGN:Systematic review of studies of delirium tools that explicitly included individuals with dementia. SETTING:Hospital. PARTICIPANTS:Studies were included if delirium assessment tools were validated against standard criteria, and the presence of dementia was assessed according to standard criteria that used validated instruments. MEASUREMENTS:PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched for articles in English published between January 1960 and January 2012. RESULTS:Nine studies fulfilled the selection criteria. Of 1,569 participants, 401 had dementia, and 50 had delirium superimposed on dementia. Six delirium tools were evaluated. One study using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) with 85% of participants with dementia had high specificity (96-100%) and moderate sensitivity (77%). Two intensive care unit studies that used the CAM for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) reported 100% sensitivity and specificity for delirium in 23 individuals with dementia. One study using electroencephalography reported sensitivity of 67% and specificity of 91% in a population with a 100% prevalence of dementia. No studies examined potential effects of dementia severity or subtype on diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSIONS:The evidence base on tools for detection of delirium superimposed on dementia is limited, although some existing tools show promise. Further studies of existing or refined tools with larger samples and more-detailed characterization of dementia are required to address the identification of delirium superimposed on dementia.
| S-EPMC3498536 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Primary outcome(s): Colorectal cancer incidence, Colorectal tumor incidence
| 79216 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:BackgroundDelirium is a common postoperative complication. Many studies have found that dexmedetomidine is associated with a reduced incidence of postoperative delirium (POD). This meta-analysis aimed to analyze the effects of dexmedetomidine on POD incidence among elderly patients undergoing general anesthesia.MethodsWe searched 4 electronic databases (i.e., Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science) from inception to November 30, 2020, for randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effects of dexmedetomidine in preventing the occurrence of POD in elderly patients (aged ≥60 years). The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020192114).Results14 studies with 4173 patients showed that dexmedetomidine was significantly associated with a decreased POD incidence among elderly patients (relative risk [RR] = 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.44-0.76). The incidence of POD was significantly reduced in the noncardiac surgery group (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.37-0.72), when dexmedetomidine was applied during the postoperative period (RR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.40-0.70), and in patients received low-doses (RR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.34-0.87) and normal-doses (RR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.42-0.83). There were no significant differences in POD incidence in the cardiac surgery group (RR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.45-1.11), and when dexmedetomidine was applied during the intra- (RR = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.29-1.01) or perioperative period (RR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.64-1.40).ConclusionsOur meta-analysis suggests that dexmedetomidine may significantly reduce POD incidence in elderly noncardiac surgery patients and when applied during the postoperative period, in addition, both low- and normal-doses of dexmedetomidine may reduce POD incidence. However, its use in cardiac surgery patients and during the intra- or perioperative period may have no significant effects on POD incidence.
| S-EPMC9191298 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Hyperlipidemia is a major risk factor for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. Acupuncture has been widely applied in the treatment of hyperlipidemia. But its efficacy has not been evaluated scientifically and systematically. Therefore, we provide a protocol of systematic evaluation to assess the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture treatment on patient with hyperlipidemia. METHODS:We will search the following databases electronically, including 3 English literature databases (i.e., PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) and 4 Chinese literature databases (i.e., Chinese Biological and Medical database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, and Wanfang Database). We will also search randomized-controlled trials about acupuncture treatment for hyperlipidemia and the search time limit is from its establishment to October 2018. The primary outcome is lipid-lowering efficacy. Secondary outcomes are total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. We will use RevMan V.5.3 software as well to compute the data synthesis carefully when a meta-analysis is allowed. RESULTS:This study will provide a high-quality synthesis to assess the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture treatment on patient with hyperlipidemia. CONCLUSION:The conclusion of our systematic review will provide evidence to judge whether acupuncture is an effective intervention for patient with hyperlipidemia.
| S-EPMC6319778 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionDelirium is very common in patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU), and may worsen survival in these patients. Several meta-analyses have evaluated the antidelirium effects of dexmedetomidine in ICU patients, but their findings were inconsistent. Recently, several large multicentre randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were published, but they have not yet to be included in any meta-analysis. We will conduct a meta-analysis adding these data to evaluate the effects of dexmedetomidine on delirium and mortality in ICU patients, aiming to terminate controversy and provide robust evidence for guiding clinical practice.Methods and analysisThe Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, ISI Web of Science will be searched from inception to 31 December 2018 for relevant RCTs. Two reviewers will independently screen the identified citations. After quality appraisal and data extraction of included studies, we will conduct meta-analyses for outcomes of interest, including delirium, mortality, length of ICU/hospital stay, time to extubation, ICU costs and adverse effects. The statistical heterogeneity among studies will be assessed by the χ2 test and quantified by the I2 statistics. We will undertake subgroup analyses to explore heterogeneity and sensitivity analyses to evaluate whether the results are robust. Potential publication bias will be assessed by funnel plot and Egger's test. At last, the quality of evidence of the main outcomes will be rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.Ethics and disseminationThe present study is a meta-analysis based on published studies, thus ethical approval is not needed. Our review will elucidate whether dexmedetomidine could decrease the incidence of delirium and improve survival in ICU patients. Our findings may help clinicians to choose optimal sedative agents for ICU patients. The results of this meta-analysis will be submitted to a peer reviewed journal for publication.Prospero registration numberCRD42018095358.
| S-EPMC6500184 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPostoperative delirium (POD) is a major cause of morbidity, particularly in elderly patients. Melatonin has been suggested as a low-risk pharmacological intervention to help prevent POD. A previous systematic review found limited high-quality evidence to support the use of melatonin in the prevention of POD. Several further randomised studies have since been published. This systematic review aims to synthesise the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of melatonin on the prevention of POD in older adults.Methods and analysisA systematic search of RCTs of melatonin (any dose and formulation) in POD will be run across Embase, Medline, CINAHL and PsychInfo. RCTs published from January 1990 until the end of February 2022 and reporting outcomes for melatonin use to prevent POD in patients will be included. Screening of search results and data extraction from included articles will be performed by two independent reviewers. The primary outcome will be incidence of POD in older adults undergoing surgery. Secondary outcomes are delirium duration and length of hospital stay. The review will also describe the dosage, timing and administration regimes of melatonin therapy and as well as the scales and definitions used to describe POD. A registry review of ongoing trials will be also be performed. For the meta-analysis, data will be pooled using a random effects model to generate a forest plot and obtain an odds ratio (OR) for the incidence of POD. Results will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required. This review will be disseminated via peer-reviewed manuscript and conferences. The results will be used as the basis of work to optimise this intervention for future trials in surgical populations.Prospero registration numberThis review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021285019).
| S-EPMC9511532 | biostudies-literature