The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic detection and multidisciplinary care of depression in older medical inpatients: a randomized trial
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Delirium is common and often goes undetected in older patients admitted to medical services. It is associated with poor outcomes. We conducted a randomized clinical trial to determine whether systematic detection and multidisciplinary care of delirium in older patients admitted to a general medical service could reduce time to improvement in cognitive status. METHODS: Consecutive patients aged 65 or more who were newly admitted to 5 general medical units between Mar. 15, 1996, and Jan. 31, 1999, were screened with the Confusion Assessment Method within 24 hours after admission to detect prevalent delirium and rescreened within a week to detect incident cases. Patients with delirium were randomly allocated to receive the intervention or usual care. Subjects in the intervention group were seen by a geriatric specialist consultant and followed in hospital for up to 8 weeks by an intervention nurse who liaised with the consultant, attending physicians, family and the primary care nurses. Subjects in the usual care group received standard hospital services but could consult geriatric specialists as needed. A research assistant, blinded as to treatment allocation, administered within 24 hours after enrolment the MiniMental Status Exam (MMSE), Delirium Index (measuring the severity of the delirium) and Barthel Index (measuring independence of personal care). Improvement was defined as an increase in the MMSE score of 2 or more points, with no decrease below baseline plus 2 points, or no decrease below a baseline MMSE score of 27. A short form of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly was completed to identify patients with possible dementia. Subjects were assessed 3 times during the first week and weekly thereafter for up to 8 weeks in hospital or until discharge. Data on clinical severity of illness, length of stay and living arrangements after discharge were also collected. The primary outcome measure was time to improvement in MMSE score. RESULTS: Of the 1925 patients who met the inclusion criteria and were screened, 227 had prevalent or incident delirium and consented to participate (113 in intervention group and 114 in usual care group). There were no clinically significant differences between the intervention and usual care groups except for sex (female 58.4% v. 50.0%) and marital status (married 34.8% v. 41.2%). Overall, 48% of the patients in the intervention group and 45% of those in the usual care group met the predetermined criteria for improvement. The Cox proportional hazards ratio (HR) for a shorter time to improvement with the intervention versus usual care, adjusted for age, sex and marital status, was 1.10 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-1.63). There were no significant differences within 8 weeks after enrolment between the 2 groups in time to and rate of improvement of the Delirium Index, the Barthel Index, length of stay, rate of discharge to the community, living arrangements after discharge or survival. Outcomes between the 2 groups did not differ statistically significantly for patients without dementia (HR 1.54, 95% CI 0.80-2.97), for those who had less co-morbidity (HR 1.36, 95% CI 0.75-2.46) or for those with prevalent delirium (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.48-2.79). INTERPRETATION: Systematic detection and multidisciplinary care of delirium does not appear to be more beneficial than usual care for older patients admitted to medical services.
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
Kok, J. S., Berg, I. J., & Scherder, E. J. A. (2013) · Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra · doi:10.1159/000353441 · Cited by 20,589
Depression and quality of life in older persons: A review
Sivertsen, H., Bjørkløf, G. H., Engedal, K., Selbæk, G., & Helvik, A.-S. (2015) · Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders · doi:10.1159/000437299 · Cited by 14,152
Robins, L. N. (1981) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1981.01780290015001 · Cited by 5,219
Unützer, J., Katon, W., Callahan, C. M., Williams, Jr., Hunkeler, E., Harpole, L., Hoffing, M., Della Penna, R. D., Noël, P. H., Lin, E. H. B., et al. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.22.2836 · Cited by 2,405
Bruce, M. L., Ten Have, T. R., Reynolds III, C. F., Katz, I. I., Schulberg, H. C., Mulsant, B. H., Brown, G. K., McAvay, G. J., Pearson, J. L., & Alexopoulos, G. S. (2004) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.291.9.1081 · Cited by 963
Daniel, W. G., Mügge, A., Martin, R. P., Lindert, O., Hausmann, D., Nonnast-Daniel, B., Laas, J., & Lichtlen, P. R. (1991) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199103213241203 · Cited by 723
Intention-to-Treat Analysis: Implications for Quantitative and Qualitative Research
NEWELL, D. J. (1992) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/21.5.837 · Cited by 715 · cited 1×
“Finally, we conducted an efficacy analysis in which we excluded patients in the intervention group who did not receive a consultation and those in the usual care group who did receive a consultation.(32) We applied the same analyses for the secondary outcomes, the Delirium Index and the Barthel Index.”
MethodSurvival and Health Care Utilization in Elderly Medical Inpatients With Major Depression
Koenig, H. G., Shelp, F., Goli, V., Cohen, H. J., & Blazer, D. G. (1989) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1989.tb01249.x · Cited by 192
Cited by
Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems
Archer, J., Bower, P., Gilbody, S., Lovell, K., Richards, D., Gask, L., Dickens, C., & Coventry, P. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006525.pub2 · Cited by 1,126
The Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE): a review
Jorm, A. F. (2004) · International Psychogeriatrics · doi:10.1017/s1041610204000390 · Cited by 823
Effectiveness of Multicomponent Nonpharmacological Delirium Interventions: A Meta-analysis
Hshieh, T. T., Yue, J., Oh, E., Puelle, M., Dowal, S., Travison, T., & Inouye, S. K. (2015) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.7779 · Cited by 801
Delirium in the intensive care unit
Girard, T. D., Pandharipande, P. P., & Ely, E. W. (2008) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/cc6149 · Cited by 622
Interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients
Siddiqi, N., Harrison, J. K., Clegg, A., Teale, E. A., Young, J., Taylor, J., & Simpkins, S. A. (2016) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005563.pub3 · Cited by 619
Metadata
- Authors
- Cole, M. G.
- Venue
- Canadian Medical Association Journal
- Publisher
- CMA Joule Inc.
- Published
- 2006-01-03
- Volume
- 174
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 38-44
- ISSN
- 0820-3946
- 1488-2329
- OpenAlex
- W2115626005
- Cited by
- 297
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 8.97
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic detection and multidisciplinary care of depression in older medical inpatients: a randomized trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1503/cmaj.050519
- The paper
- Cole, M. G. (2006). Systematic detection and multidisciplinary care of depression in older medical inpatients: a randomized trial. Canadian Medical Association Journal. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.050519
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.