Qian Zhang1, Sheng Li2, Meixi Chen3, Qiuyu Yang1, Xiao Cao1, Long Ge4, Baoshan Di5. 1. School of Nursing, Lanzhou University. 2. The First People's Hospital of Lanzhou City. 3. The First Clinical Medical College, Lanzhou University. 4. Department of Social Medicine and Health Management, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University. 5. The First Hospital, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common type of acute brain dysfunction among emergency department (ED) patients. The prevalence of delirium in the ED is up to 40%. Although screening instruments used to identify delirium have been developed, it is unclear which tool is the most accurate in the ED. To address this challenging, we systematically examine the accuracy of delirium screening tools used to assess the ED patients. METHODS: This study has been registered at the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (INPLASY), and the registration number is INPLASY202110041. We will search the PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library. Studies involving patients which compared diagnostic instruments with the criteria in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as a reference standard will be included. We will use STATA 15.1 and MetaDiSC to make careful analysis of the results. The quality of included studies will be assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 scale. RESULTS: In this study, the accuracy of different screening methods among ED patients is assessed by a high-quality synthesis. The number of tools available for screening delirium in the ED, the information of studies including the countries, the study design, the sample size and the characteristic of studies, the quality of the studies and the results of meta-analysis. The systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. CONCLUSION: According to the conclusion of the systematic review, evidence will be provided to judge which screening method is the best for the ED patients. The results will bring better understanding of screening methods in the ED and highlight gaps for future research.
BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common type of acute brain dysfunction among emergency department (ED) patients. The prevalence of delirium in the ED is up to 40%. Although screening instruments used to identify delirium have been developed, it is unclear which tool is the most accurate in the ED. To address this challenging, we systematically examine the accuracy of delirium screening tools used to assess the ED patients. METHODS: This study has been registered at the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (INPLASY), and the registration number is INPLASY202110041. We will search the PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library. Studies involving patients which compared diagnostic instruments with the criteria in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as a reference standard will be included. We will use STATA 15.1 and MetaDiSC to make careful analysis of the results. The quality of included studies will be assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 scale. RESULTS: In this study, the accuracy of different screening methods among ED patients is assessed by a high-quality synthesis. The number of tools available for screening delirium in the ED, the information of studies including the countries, the study design, the sample size and the characteristic of studies, the quality of the studies and the results of meta-analysis. The systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. CONCLUSION: According to the conclusion of the systematic review, evidence will be provided to judge which screening method is the best for the ED patients. The results will bring better understanding of screening methods in the ED and highlight gaps for future research.
Authors: Jin H Han; Amanda Wilson; Amy J Graves; Ayumi Shintani; John F Schnelle; E Wesley Ely Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Larissa Shamseer; David Moher; Mike Clarke; Davina Ghersi; Alessandro Liberati; Mark Petticrew; Paul Shekelle; Lesley A Stewart Journal: BMJ Date: 2015-01-02
Authors: Guillermo Cano-Escalera; Manuel Graña; Jon Irazusta; Idoia Labayen; Ariadna Besga Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-16 Impact factor: 3.390