Lin, Yu-Chen, Shiao, Yi-Chih, Chen, Wan-Ting, Hsu, Chih-Wei, Thompson, Trevor ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9880-782X, Carvalho, Andre F., Stubbs, Brendon, Tseng, Ping-Tao, Yang, Wen-Wu, Tu, Yu-Kang ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2461-474X, Liang, Chih-Sung ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1138-5586 and Hsu, Tien-Wei (2026) Diagnostic accuracy of delirium screening tools in the emergency department: a network meta-analysis. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. ISSN 0735-6757 (Print), 1532-8171 (Online) (doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2026.08.050)

	PDF (Author's Accepted Manuscript) 54335 THOMPSON_ Diagnostic_Accuracy_Of_Delirium_Screening_Tools_(AMM)_2026.pdf - Accepted Version Restricted to Repository staff only until 29 August 2027. Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. Download (877kB) | Request a copy
	PDF (Preproof) 54335 THOMPSON_ Diagnostic_Accuracy_Of_Delirium_Screening_Tools_(PREPROOF AMM)_2026.pdf - Accepted Version Restricted to Repository staff only Download (2MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

Background: Delirium in the emergency department (ED) is common, frequently missed, and assessed using multiple screening tools with uncertain comparative performance. We compared diagnostic accuracy and administration time and explored efficient screening strategies.
Methods: Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL were searched through June 6, 2026, with citation searching. Eligible studies evaluated structured delirium screening tools against standardized diagnostic criteria and provided 2 × 2 data. Two reviewers screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 tool. A Bayesian bivariate random-effects network meta-analysis was performed. Primary analyses compared six functional categories; secondary analyses evaluated individual instruments.
Results: Twenty studies comprising 9664 examinations evaluated 16 tools. The Delirium Triage Screen had the highest sensitivity [0.96; 95% credible interval (CrI) = (0.84, 1.00)], whereas composite delirium diagnostic algorithms had the highest specificity [0.95; 95% CrI = (0.92, 0.97)] and Youden Index [0.74; 95% CrI = (0.64, 0.81)]. Instrument-level estimates varied within categories; among higher-performing tools, 4AT combined favorable performance [Youden Index = 0.74; 95% CrI = (0.58, 0.83)] with the largest evidence base (7 datasets). Administration time was not associated with diagnostic performance (Spearman ρ = −0.31; P = .54). In simulation at 10% delirium prevalence, sequential arousal/sedation followed by attention/working-memory assessment yielded a positive predictive value of 73.8% versus 63.4% for composite algorithms, with estimated administration times of 1.0 versus 3.0 min.
Conclusion: Category-level and instrument-level analyses provided complementary information on screening approaches and tool selection. Sequential arousal- and attention-based screening showed greater modeled efficiency and warrants prospective evaluation before clinical implementation.

Item Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	delirium, diagnostic accuracy, emergency department, network meta-analysis, screening
Subjects:	R Medicine > R Medicine (General) R Medicine > RC Internal medicine > RC0321 Neuroscience. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry T Technology > T Technology (General)
Faculty / School / Research Centre / Research Group:	Faculty of Education, Health & Human Sciences Faculty of Education, Health & Human Sciences > Institute for Lifecourse Development Faculty of Education, Health & Human Sciences > Institute for Lifecourse Development > Centre for Chronic Illness and Ageing Faculty of Education, Health & Human Sciences > School of Human Sciences (HUM)
Last Modified:	04 Sep 2026 10:40
URI:	https://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/54335

Actions (login required)

View Item

Downloads