Advancing specificity in delirium: The delirium subtyping initiative

BACKGROUND: Delirium, a common syndrome with heterogeneous etiologies and clinical presentations, is associated with poor long-term outcomes. Recording and analyzing all delirium equally could be hindering the field's understanding of pathophysiology and identification of targeted treatments. Current delirium subtyping methods reflect clinically evident features but likely do not account for underlying biology. METHODS: The Delirium Subtyping Initiative (DSI) held three sessions with an international panel of 25 experts. RESULTS: Meeting participants suggest further characterization of delirium features to complement the existing Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition Text Revision diagnostic criteria. These should span the range of delirium-spectrum syndromes and be measured consistently across studies. Clinical features should be recorded in conjunction with biospecimen collection, where feasible, in a standardized way, to determine temporal associations of biology coincident with clinical fluctuations. DISCUSSION: The DSI made recommendations spanning the breadth of delirium research including clinical features, study planning, data collection, and data analysis for characterization of candidate delirium subtypes. HIGHLIGHTS: Delirium features must be clearly defined, standardized, and operationalized. Large datasets incorporating both clinical and biomarker variables should be analyzed together. Delirium screening should incorporate communication and reasoning

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) excess mortality outcomes associated with pandemic effects study (COPES): A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and aimWith the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continuing to impact healthcare systems around the world, healthcare providers are attempting to balance resources devoted to COVID-19 patients while minimizing excess mortality overall (both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients). To this end, we conducted a systematic review (SR) to describe the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on all-cause excess mortality (COVID-19 and non-COVID-19) during the pandemic timeframe compared to non-pandemic times.MethodsWe searched EMBASE, Cochrane Database of SRs, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), from inception (1948) to December 31, 2020. We used a two-stage review process to screen/extract data. We assessed risk of bias using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). We used Critical Appraisal and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.ResultsOf 11,581 citations, 194 studies met eligibility. Of these studies, 31 had mortality comparisons (n = 433,196,345 participants). Compared to pre-pandemic times, during the COVID-19 pandemic, our meta-analysis demonstrated that COVID-19 mortality had an increased risk difference (RD) of 0.06% (95% CI: 0.06–0.06% p < 0.00001). All-cause mortality also increased [relative risk (RR): 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38–1.70, p < 0.00001] alongside non-COVID-19 mortality (RR: 1.18, 1.07–1.30, p < 0.00001). There was “very low” certainty of evidence through GRADE assessment for all outcomes studied, demonstrating the evidence as uncertain.InterpretationThe COVID-19 pandemic may have caused significant increases in all-cause excess mortality, greater than those accounted for by increases due to COVID-19 mortality alone, although the evidence is uncertain.Systematic review registration[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails], identifier [CRD42020201256]

Deidentified dataset from Time spent formatting research manuscripts for submission annually

Deidentified dataset for publicationData from journals studied to determine how long it takes to complete the formatting and submission process. No patient data is in this dataset. Data was generated by two research assistants who timed how long it took them to format and submit papers for publication to the top 10 general internal medicine journals. Other data came from publicly available websites

Assessing Nociception by Fmri of the Human Spinal Cord: A Systematic Review

Objective To assess the use of fMRI of the spinal cord in measuring noxious stimulation. Methods The Scopus, Medline, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched, along with the reference lists of included articles. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts, full-text articles, and extracted data. Original research was included if fMRI of the human spinal cord was used to measure responses to noxious stimulation. Results Of the 192 abstracts screened, 19 met the search criteria and were divided according to their focus: investigating pain responses ( n = 6), methodology ( n = 6), spinal cord injury ( n = 2), or cognition–pain interactions ( n = 5). All but one study appear to have observed activity in ipsilateral and dorsal gray matter regions in response to noxious stimuli, although contralateral or ventral activity was also widely observed. Conclusions Although nociception can be investigated using spinal fMRI, establishing reliability, standardizing methodology, and reporting of results will greatly advance this field

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of the Incidence and Prevalence of Dementia and Its Commoner Neurodegenerative Causes

Hotchkiss Brain InstituteBrenda Strafford Foundation Chair in Geriatric MedicinePublic Health Agency of Canad

Structure and Outcomes of Educational Programs for Training Non-electroencephalographers in Performing and Screening Adult EEG: A Systematic Review

To qualitatively and quantitatively summarize curricula, teaching methods, and effectiveness of educational programs for training bedside care providers (non-experts) in the performance and screening of adult electroencephalography (EEG) for nonconvulsive seizures and other patterns. PRISMA methodological standards were followed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, WOS, Scopus, and MedEdPORTAL databases were searched from inception until February 26, 2020 with no restrictions. Abstract and full-text review was completed in duplicate. Studies were included if they were original research; involved non-experts performing, troubleshooting, or screening adult EEG; and provided qualitative descriptions of curricula and teaching methods and/or quantitative assessment of non-experts (vs gold standard EEG performance by neurodiagnostic technologists or interpretation by neurophysiologists). Data were extracted in duplicate. A content analysis and a meta-narrative review were performed. Of 2430 abstracts, 35 studies were included. Sensitivity and specificity of seizure identification varied from 38 to 100% and 65 to 100% for raw EEG; 40 to 93% and 38 to 95% for quantitative EEG, and 95 to 100% and 65 to 85% for sonified EEG, respectively. Non-expert performance of EEG resulted in statistically significant reduced delay (86 min, p < 0.0001; 196 min, p < 0.0001; 667 min, p < 0.005) in EEG completion and changes in management in approximately 40% of patients. Non-experts who were trained included physicians, nurses, neurodiagnostic technicians, and medical students. Numerous teaching methods were utilized and often combined, with instructional and hands-on training being most common. Several different bedside providers can be educated to perform and screen adult EEG, particularly for the purpose of diagnosing nonconvulsive seizures. While further rigorous research is warranted, this review demonstrates several potential bridges by which EEG may be integrated into the care of critically ill patients

Clinical practice guideline recommendations for diagnosis and management of anxiety and depression in hospitalized adults with delirium: a systematic review

Abstract Background Delirium commonly occurs in hospitalized adults. Psychiatric disorders such as anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can co-occur with delirium, and can be recognized and managed by clinicians using recommendations found in methodological guiding statements called Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs). The specific aims of this review were to: [1] synthesize CPG recommendations for the diagnosis and management of anxiety, depression, and PTSD in adults with delirium in acute care; and [2] identify recent published literature in addition to those identified and reported in a 2017 review on delirium CPG recommendations and quality. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and 21 sites on the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies listed in the Health Grey Matters Lite tool were searched from inception to February 12, 2021. Selected CPGs focused on delirium in acute care, were endorsed by an international scientific society or governmental organization, and contained at least one recommendation for the diagnosis or management of delirium. Two reviewers independently extracted data in duplicate and independently assessed CPG quality using the AGREE-II tool. Narrative synthesis of CPG recommendations was conducted. Results Title and abstract screening was completed on 7611 records. Full-text review was performed on 197 CPGs. The final review included 27 CPGs of which 7 (26%) provided recommendations for anxiety (4/7, 57%), depression (5/7, 71%), and PTSD (1/7, 14%) in delirium. Twenty CPGs provided recommendations for delirium only (e.g., assess patient regularly, avoid use of benzodiazepines). Recommendations for the diagnosis of psychiatric disorders with delirium included using evidence-based diagnostic criteria and standardized screening tools. Recommendations for the management of psychiatric disorders with delirium included pharmacological (e.g., anxiolytics, antidepressants) and non-pharmacological interventions (e.g., promoting patient orientation using clocks). Guideline quality varied: the lowest was Applicability (mean = 36%); the highest Clarity of Presentation (mean = 76%). Conclusions There are few available evidence-based CPGs to facilitate appropriate diagnosis and management of anxiety, depression, and PTSD in patients with delirium in acute care. Future guideline developers should incorporate evidence-based recommendations on the diagnosis and management of these psychiatric disorders in delirium. Systematic review registration Registration number: PROSPERO (CRD42021237056

Delirium severity: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Protocol: Delirium severity and patient health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysi

Discriminative ability of quality of life measures in multiple sclerosis

Abstract Background Though many people with multiple sclerosis (MS) have comorbidities, the use of generic and disease-specific health related quality of life (HRQOL) scales to discriminate the effects of comorbidity has not been established. The utility of these scales to discriminate differences between persons with varying levels of disability is also unknown. Methods Using online questionnaires, a convenience sample of Albertans with MS was recruited between July 2011 and March 2013. Participants completed demographic questions, a validated comorbidity questionnaire, a self-reported disability scale, and the following HRQOL scales: the Short Form (SF)-36, SF-6D, Health Utilities Index-Mark III (HUI-III), and Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life-54 (MSQOL-54). The ability of each HRQOL scale to distinguish between comorbidity groups was assessed using a one-way analysis of covariance, adjusting for age, sex, disease course, and disability level. Results Five hundred sixty three participants completed all relevant questionnaires. All HRQOL measures distinguished between persons with or without depression, while none were able to distinguish between participants with or without hypertension, thyroid disease, irritable bowel syndrome, or osteoporosis. The SF-36 physical scale, SF-6D, HUI-III, and MSQOL-54 physical scales were able to distinguish between all disability groups, though the HUI-III was better able to distinguish between individuals with moderate versus severe disability. Conclusions Disease-specific measures would discriminate better between those with and without comorbidities than generic-specific measures and the HUI-III would discriminate best between persons with differing severities of disability. Generic or disease-specific measures may be useful in future studies examining the effects of comorbidity in MS and the effects of treatment of comorbidities in MS