↓ Skip to main content

Strategies for prevention of postoperative delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
150 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
242 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Strategies for prevention of postoperative delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
Published in
Critical Care, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc12566
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hao Zhang, Yan Lu, Meng Liu, Zui Zou, Long Wang, Feng-Ying Xu, Xue-Yin Shi

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The ideal measures to prevent postoperative delirium remain unestablished. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the significance of potential interventions. METHODS: The PRISMA statement guidelines were followed. Two researchers searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library for articles published in English before August 2012. Additional sources included reference lists from reviews and related articles from 'Google Scholar'. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on interventions seeking to prevent postoperative delirium in adult patients were included. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were performed using predefined data fields and scoring system. Meta-analysis was accomplished for studies that used similar strategies. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of postoperative delirium. We further tested whether interventions effective in preventing postoperative delirium shortened the length of hospital stay. RESULTS: We identified 38 RCTs with interventions ranging from perioperative managements to pharmacological, psychological or multicomponent interventions. Meta-analysis showed dexmedetomidine sedation was associated with less delirium compared to sedation produced by other drugs (two RCTs with 415 patients, pooled risk ratio (RR) = 0.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.16 to 0.95). Both typical (three RCTs with 965 patients, RR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.54 to 0.93) and atypical antipsychotics (three RCTs with 627 patients, RR = 0.36; 95% CI = 0.26 to 0.50) decreased delirium occurrence when compared to placebos. Multicomponent interventions (two RCTs with 325 patients, RR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.58 to 0.86) were effective in preventing delirium. No difference in the incidences of delirium was found between: neuraxial and general anesthesia (four RCTs with 511 patients, RR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.65 to 1.50); epidural and intravenous analgesia (three RCTs with 167 patients, RR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.61 to 1.43) or acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and placebo (four RCTs with 242 patients, RR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.63 to 1.44). Effective prevention of postoperative delirium did not shorten the length of hospital stay (10 RCTs with 1,636 patients, pooled SMD (standard mean difference) = -0.06; 95% CI = -0.16 to 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The included studies showed great inconsistencies in definition, incidence, severity and duration of postoperative delirium. Meta-analysis supported dexmedetomidine sedation, multicomponent interventions and antipsychotics were useful in preventing postoperative delirium.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 242 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 232 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 13%
Other 27 11%
Researcher 21 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 8%
Other 76 31%
Unknown 45 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 128 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 9%
Psychology 6 2%
Neuroscience 5 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 25 10%
Unknown 52 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 October 2018.
All research outputs
#6,237,961
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,583
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,261
of 222,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#53
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 222,519 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 172 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.