The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Postoperative Delirium and Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction: Overlap and Divergence
Open accessAbstract
Editor’s Perspective: What We Already Know about This Topic: What This Article Tells Us That Is New: Background: Postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction share risk factors and may co-occur, but their relationship is not well established. The primary goals of this study were to describe the prevalence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction and to investigate its association with in-hospital delirium. The authors hypothesized that delirium would be a significant risk factor for postoperative cognitive dysfunction during follow-up. Methods: This study used data from an observational study of cognitive outcomes after major noncardiac surgery, the Successful Aging after Elective Surgery study. Postoperative delirium was evaluated each hospital day with confusion assessment method–based interviews supplemented by chart reviews. Postoperative cognitive dysfunction was determined using methods adapted from the International Study of Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction. Associations between delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction were examined at 1, 2, and 6 months. Results: One hundred thirty-four of 560 participants (24%) developed delirium during hospitalization. Slightly fewer than half (47%, 256 of 548) met the International Study of Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction-defined threshold for postoperative cognitive dysfunction at 1 month, but this proportion decreased at 2 months (23%, 123 of 536) and 6 months (16%, 85 of 528). At each follow-up, the level of agreement between delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction was poor (kappa less than .08) and correlations were small (r less than .16). The relative risk of postoperative cognitive dysfunction was significantly elevated for patients with a history of postoperative delirium at 1 month (relative risk = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.07–1.67), but not 2 months (relative risk = 1.08; 95% CI, 0.72–1.64), or 6 months (relative risk = 1.21; 95% CI, 0.71–2.09). Conclusions: Delirium significantly increased the risk of postoperative cognitive dysfunction in the first postoperative month; this relationship did not hold in longer-term follow-up. At each evaluation, postoperative cognitive dysfunction was more common among patients without delirium. Postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction may be distinct manifestations of perioperative neurocognitive deficits.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
Sterne, J. A. C., White, I. R., Carlin, J. B., Spratt, M., Royston, P., Kenward, M. G., Wood, A. M., & Carpenter, J. R. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2393 · Cited by 7,299
Inouye, S. K., Westendorp, R. G., & Saczynski, J. S. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)60688-1 · Cited by 3,722
Self-citationDelis-Kaplan Executive Function System
Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E., & Kramer, J. H. (2012) · PsycTESTS Dataset · doi:10.1037/t15082-000 · Cited by 2,683
Davis, D. H. J., Muniz-Terrera, G., Keage, H. A. D., Stephan, B. C. M., Fleming, J., Ince, P. G., Matthews, F. E., Cunningham, C., Ely, E. W., MacLullich, A. M. J., et al. (2017) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.3423 · Cited by 252
Cited by
Lang, H.-L., Zhao, Y.-Z., Xiao, R.-J., Sun, J., Chen, Y., Hu, G.-W., & Xu, G.-H. (2023) · Neural Regeneration Research · doi:10.4103/1673-5374.350205 · Cited by 33
Metadata
- Authors
- Daiello, L. A., Racine, A. M., Yun Gou, R., Marcantonio, E. R., Xie, Z., Kunze, L. J., Vlassakov, K. V., Inouye, S. K., Jones, R. N., & for the SAGES Study Group
- Venue
- Anesthesiology
- Published
- 2019-09
- Volume
- 131
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 477-491
- ISSN
- 0003-3022 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2953164924
- Cited by
- 311
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 26.72
- 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.