Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,362

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Precipitating Factors for Delirium in Hospitalized Elderly Persons: Predictive Model and Interrelationship With Baseline Vulnerability

Open access
Inouye, Sharon K.·1996·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.1996.03530350034031
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To prospectively develop and validate a predictive model for delirium based on precipitating factors during hospitalization, and to examine the interrelationship of precipitating factors and baseline vulnerability. DESIGN: Two prospective cohort studies, in tandem. SETTING: General medical wards, university teaching hospital. PATIENTS: For the development cohort, 196 patients aged 70 years and older with no delirium at baseline, and for the validation cohort, 312 comparable patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: New-onset delirium by hospital day 9, defined by the Confusion Assessment Method diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: Delirium developed in 35 patients (18%) in the development cohort. Five independent precipitating factors for delirium were identified; use of physical restraints (adjusted relative risk [RR], 4.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5 to 7.9), malnutrition (RR, 4.0; 95% CI, 2.2 to 7.4), more than three medications added (RR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.6 to 5.4), use of bladder catheter (RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 4.7), and any iatrogenic event (RR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1 to 3.2). Each precipitating factor preceded the onset of delirium by more than 24 hours. A risk stratification system was developed by adding 1 point for each factor present. Rates of delirium for low-risk (0 points), intermediate-risk (1 to 2 points), and high-risk groups (> or equal to 3 points) were 3%, 20%, and 59%, respectively (P < .001). The corresponding rates in the validation cohort, in which 47 patients (15%) developed delirium, were 4%, 20%, and 35%, respectively (P < .001). When precipitating and baseline factors were analyzed in cross-stratified format, delirium rates increased progressively from low-risk to high-risk groups in all directions (double-gradient phenomenon). The contributions of baseline and precipitating factors were documented to be independent and statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: A simple predictive model based on the presence of five precipitating factors can be used to identify elderly medical patients at high risk for delirium. Precipitating and baseline vulnerability factors are highly interrelated and contribute to delirium in independent substantive, and cumulative ways.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1996.03530350034031

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Inouye, S. K.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
1996-03-20
Volume
275
Issue
11
Pages
852
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.1996.03530350034031
OpenAlex
W2032313326
Cited by
1,362
References
4
FWCI
13.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.