14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      The Epidemiology of Delirium: Challenges and Opportunities for Population Studies

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Delirium is a serious and common acute neuropsychiatric syndrome that is associated with short- and long-term adverse health outcomes. However, relatively little delirium research has been conducted in unselected populations. Epidemiologic research in such populations has the potential to resolve several questions of clinical significance in delirium. Part 1 of this article explores the importance of population selection, case-ascertainment, attrition, and confounding. Part 2 examines a specific question in delirium epidemiology: What is the relationship between delirium and trajectories of cognitive decline? This section assesses previous work through two systematic reviews and proposes a design for investigating delirium in the context of longitudinal cohort studies. Such a design requires robust links between community and hospital settings. Practical considerations for case-ascertainment in the hospital, as well as the necessary quality control of these programs, are outlined. We argue that attention to these factors is important if delirium research is to benefit fully from a population perspective.

          Related collections

          Most cited references86

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer's disease: Recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease

          The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association charged a workgroup with the task of revising the 1984 criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. The workgroup sought to ensure that the revised criteria would be flexible enough to be used by both general healthcare providers without access to neuropsychological testing, advanced imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid measures, and specialized investigators involved in research or in clinical trial studies who would have these tools available. We present criteria for all-cause dementia and for AD dementia. We retained the general framework of probable AD dementia from the 1984 criteria. On the basis of the past 27 years of experience, we made several changes in the clinical criteria for the diagnosis. We also retained the term possible AD dementia, but redefined it in a manner more focused than before. Biomarker evidence was also integrated into the diagnostic formulations for probable and possible AD dementia for use in research settings. The core clinical criteria for AD dementia will continue to be the cornerstone of the diagnosis in clinical practice, but biomarker evidence is expected to enhance the pathophysiological specificity of the diagnosis of AD dementia. Much work lies ahead for validating the biomarker diagnosis of AD dementia. Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Inc.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

            Because of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Twenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods. From the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed. The proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Meta-analysis in clinical trials.

              This paper examines eight published reviews each reporting results from several related trials. Each review pools the results from the relevant trials in order to evaluate the efficacy of a certain treatment for a specified medical condition. These reviews lack consistent assessment of homogeneity of treatment effect before pooling. We discuss a random effects approach to combining evidence from a series of experiments comparing two treatments. This approach incorporates the heterogeneity of effects in the analysis of the overall treatment efficacy. The model can be extended to include relevant covariates which would reduce the heterogeneity and allow for more specific therapeutic recommendations. We suggest a simple noniterative procedure for characterizing the distribution of treatment effects in a series of studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Am J Geriatr Psychiatry
                Am J Geriatr Psychiatry
                The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry
                Elsevier
                1064-7481
                1545-7214
                1 December 2013
                December 2013
                : 21
                : 12
                : 1173-1189
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
                [b ]Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Bethel Evangelisches Krankenhaus, Bielefeld, Germany
                [c ]MRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing, University College London, London, United Kingdom
                [d ]College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
                [e ]Department of Rehabilitation and Aged Care, Hospital Ancelle, Cremona, Italy
                [f ]Regenstrief Institute, Inc. and Indiana University Center for Aging Research, Indianapolis, Indiana
                [g ]Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
                [h ]Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
                [i ]Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                []Send correspondence and reprint requests to Daniel H.J. Davis, M.B. Ch.B., M.R.C.P., Institute of Public Health, Robinson Way, Cambridge, United Kingdom CB2 0SR. dhjd2@ 123456cam.ac.uk
                Article
                S1064-7481(13)00215-7
                10.1016/j.jagp.2013.04.007
                3837358
                23907068
                c924bcff-779c-4a79-987e-5dfc8473c91c
                © 2013 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

                This document may be redistributed and reused, subject to certain conditions.

                History
                : 3 May 2012
                : 25 March 2013
                : 15 April 2013
                Categories
                Regular Research Article

                delirium,dementia,epidemiology,systematic review
                delirium, dementia, epidemiology, systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article