Functional and cognitive outcomes after COVID-19 delirium
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Purpose
To ascertain delirium prevalence and outcomes in COVID-19.
Methods
We conducted a point-prevalence study in a cohort of COVID-19 inpatients at University College Hospital. Delirium was defined by DSM-IV criteria. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 4 weeks; secondary outcomes were physical and cognitive function.
Results
In 71 patients (mean age 61, 75% men), 31 (42%) had delirium, of which only 12 (39%) had been recognised by the clinical team. At 4 weeks, 20 (28%) had died, 26 (36%) were interviewed by telephone and 21 (30%) remained as inpatients. Physical function was substantially worse in people after delirium − 50 out of 166 points (95% CI − 83 to − 17, p = 0.01). Mean cognitive scores at follow-up were similar and delirium was not associated with mortality in this sample.
Conclusions
Our findings indicate that delirium is common, yet under-recognised. Delirium is associated with functional impairments in the medium term.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.07.20115188: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources All analyses were conducted in Stata 14.0 (StataCorp, Texas). StataCorpsuggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.07.20115188: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources All analyses were conducted in Stata 14.0 (StataCorp, Texas). StataCorpsuggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.07.20115188: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Ethics approval: These analyses were conducted as part of a service evaluation project a individual consent was not necessary as determined by the NHS Health Research Autho (HRA), the regulatory body for medical research for England, UK. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources All analyses were conducted in Stata 14.0 ( StataCorp , Texas) . StataCorpsuggested: (Stata, SCR_012763)Results from OddPub: We did not find a statement about open data. We also did …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.07.20115188: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement Ethics approval: These analyses were conducted as part of a service evaluation project a individual consent was not necessary as determined by the NHS Health Research Autho (HRA), the regulatory body for medical research for England, UK. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources All analyses were conducted in Stata 14.0 ( StataCorp , Texas) . StataCorpsuggested: (Stata, SCR_012763)Results from OddPub: We did not find a statement about open data. We also did not find a statement about open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
About SciScore
SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore is not a substitute for expert review. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers) in the manuscript, and detects sentences that appear to be missing RRIDs. SciScore also checks to make sure that rigor criteria are addressed by authors. It does this by detecting sentences that discuss criteria such as blinding or power analysis. SciScore does not guarantee that the rigor criteria that it detects are appropriate for the particular study. Instead it assists authors, editors, and reviewers by drawing attention to sections of the manuscript that contain or should contain various rigor criteria and key resources. For details on the results shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.
-
