Evidence Hub

Assessment of people with cognitive impairment and hip fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Smith T, Hameed Y, Cross J, Sahota O, Fox C

Archives of gerontology and geriatrics, 2013

690 participants

Abstract

This study systematically assesses the literature pertaining to the diagnostic test accuracy of assessment instruments to evaluate patients following hip fracture surgery who present with cognitive impairment. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Studies assessing the reliability, validity, sensitivity or specificity of assessment tools for patients following hip fracture who were cognitively impaired were included. An assessment of published (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL, AMED, Cochrane library, PEDro) and unpublished/trial registry (OpenGrey, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Current Controlled Trials, the UK National Research Register Archive) databases were undertaken. Methodological quality of the literature was assessed using the QUADAS-2 appraisal tool. Nine studies including 690 participants, with a mean age of 82.1 years were included. The literature demonstrated a high risk of bias for study methodology, but low risk of bias for applicability. Two assessment domains were recognized: pain and delirium. For pain, the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) and DOLOPLUS-2 tools possessed strong inter-rater reliability and internal consistency, with the FACS demonstrating concurrent validity with other pain scales. For delirium, the Delirium Rating Scale-Revisited-98 (DRS-R-98) demonstrated high inter-rater reliability and sensitivity and specificity, with the NEECHAM Confusion Scale possessing high internal consistency. To conclude, there…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 690 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free