Cited by 60Intensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAnesthesia and Neurotoxicity Research

Cognitive Reserve and Postoperative Delirium in Older Adults

Open access
Tow, Amanda, Holtzer, Roee, Wang, Cuiling, Sharan, Alok, Kim, Sun Jin, Gladstein, Aharon, Blum, Yossef, Verghese, Joe·2016·Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Abstract

Objectives: To examine the role of cognitive reserve in reducing delirium incidence and severity in older adults undergoing surgery. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Hospital. Participants: Older adults (mean age 71.2, 65% women) undergoing elective orthopedic surgery (N = 142). Measurements: Incidence (Confusion Assessment Method) and severity (Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale) of postoperative delirium were the primary outcomes. Predictors included early‐ (literacy) and late‐life (cognitive activities) proxies for cognitive reserve. Results: Forty‐five participants (32%) developed delirium. Greater participation in cognitive activity was associated with lower incidence (odds ratio = 0.92 corresponding to increase of 1 activity per week, 95% confidence interval ( CI ) = 0.86–0.98, P = .006) and severity (B = −0.06, 95% CI = −0.11 to −0.01, P = .02) of delirium after adjustment for age, sex, medical illnesses, and baseline cognition. Greater literacy was not associated with lower delirium incidence or severity. Of individual leisure activities, reading books, using electronic mail, singing, and computer games were associated with lower dementia incidence and severity. Conclusion: Greater late‐life cognitive reserve was associated with lower delirium incidence and severity in older adults undergoing surgery. Interventions to enhance cognitive reserve by initiating or increasing participation in cognitive activities may be explored as a delirium prophylaxis strategy.

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 · 10.1111/jgs.14130

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the United States, risks of loneliness, depression, delirium, and falls are greatest among patients with limited English comprehension, low health literacy, and socioeconomic disadvantage.

    “In the United States, all of these risks are greatest among patients with limited English comprehension, low health literacy, and socioeconomic disadvantage [15].”

    From A Protocol-Driven, Bedside Digital Conversational Agent to Support Nurse Teams and Mitigate Risks of Hospitalization in Older Adults: Case Control Pre-Post Study (2019) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Results (Study Population; page unavailable) report that older surgical patients who developed postoperative delirium had lower literacy. But literacy did not significantly predict delirium after adjustment, and the paper measures reading-test literacy rather than health literacy. It does not establish that loneliness, depression, delirium, and falls are greatest among patients with limited English comprehension or socioeconomic disadvantage. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [20]Pompei P Foreman M Rudberg MA Delirium in hospitalized older persons: outcomes and predictors J Am Geriatr Soc 1994 42 809 815 8046190

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tow, A., Holtzer, R., Wang, C., Sharan, A., Kim, S. J., Gladstein, A., Blum, Y., & Verghese, J.
Affiliations
Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Verghese, Joe
Venue
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-06
Volume
64
Issue
6
Pages
1341-1346
ISSN
  • 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5415
OpenAlex
W2425756612
Cited by
60
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3
FWCI
6.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (R01 AG039330, RO1AGO44007, AGO44829, R01AG036921)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32‐GM007288)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Intensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Anesthesia and Neurotoxicity Research
Keywords
cognitive reserve, postoperative delirium, older adults, elective orthopaedic surgery, cognitive activity, literacy, delirium severity, delirium incidence, dementia, delirium prevention, leisure
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Delirium, Female, Humans, Male, Postoperative Complications, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Incidence, Orthopedic Procedures, Cognitive Reserve

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