Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,030

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Outcome of delirium in critically ill patients: systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Salluh, J. I. F., Wang, H., Schneider, E. B., Nagaraja, N., Yenokyan, G., Damluji, A., Serafim, R. B., Stevens, R. D.·2015·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the relation between delirium in critically ill patients and their outcomes in the short term (in the intensive care unit and in hospital) and after discharge from hospital. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PsychINFO, with no language restrictions, up to 1 January 2015. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTION STUDIES: Reports were eligible for inclusion if they were prospective observational cohorts or clinical trials of adults in intensive care units who were assessed with a validated delirium screening or rating system, and if the association was measured between delirium and at least one of four clinical endpoints (death during admission, length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and any outcome after hospital discharge). Studies were excluded if they primarily enrolled patients with a neurological disorder or patients admitted to intensive care after cardiac surgery or organ/tissue transplantation, or centered on sedation management or alcohol or substance withdrawal. Data were extracted on characteristics of studies, populations sampled, identification of delirium, and outcomes. Random effects models and meta-regression analyses were used to pool data from individual studies. RESULTS: Delirium was identified in 5280 of 16,595 (31.8%) critically ill patients reported in 42 studies. When compared with control patients without delirium, patients with delirium had significantly higher mortality during admission (risk ratio 2.19, 94% confidence interval 1.78 to 2.70; P<0.001) as well as longer durations of mechanical ventilation and lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and in hospital (standard mean differences 1.79 (95% confidence interval 0.31 to 3.27; P<0.001), 1.38 (0.99 to 1.77; P<0.001), and 0.97 (0.61 to 1.33; P<0.001), respectively). Available studies indicated an association between delirium and cognitive impairment after discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly a third of patients admitted to an intensive care unit develop delirium, and these patients are at increased risk of dying during admission, longer stays in hospital, and cognitive impairment after discharge.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.h2538

Cites

16 of 16 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 16 references

Cited by

See all 1,030

Metadata

Authors
Salluh, J. I. F., Wang, H., Schneider, E. B., Nagaraja, N., Yenokyan, G., Damluji, A., Serafim, R. B., & Stevens, R. D.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2015-06-03
Volume
350
Issue
may19 3
Pages
h2538-h2538
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2158946857
Cited by
1,030
References
16
FWCI
10.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Outcome of delirium in critically ill patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.h2538
The paper
Salluh, J. I. F., Wang, H., Schneider, E. B., Nagaraja, N., Yenokyan, G., Damluji, A., Serafim, R. B., & Stevens, R. D. (2015). Outcome of delirium in critically ill patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h2538

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.