Evidence Hub

Nonpharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in adult patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Kanno Y, Shinsato K, Kako J, Matsuda Y, Inoue S, Tanimukai H, Wada S, Hasegawa T

Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2026

2,747 participants

Abstract

Purpose: To determine whether nonpharmacological interventions reduce delirium incidence in adult patients with cancer and to identify effective intervention strategies.

Method: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Ichushi-Web were searched through September 30, 2024, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two authors independently extracted data, assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, and evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The primary outcome was delirium incidence. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analysis. The study protocol was registered with UMIN-CTR (No. UMIN000051804; registered August 2, 2023).

Results: Overall, 12 RCTs involving 2,747 patients were included. Interventions were categorized into multicomponent interventions, bright light therapy, rehabilitation, and anesthesia or oxygen management. The meta-analysis of five trials showed that multicomponent interventions significantly reduced delirium incidence (risk ratio [RR], 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.60; moderate-certainty evidence), with benefit predominantly observed in postoperative settings. The evidence for bright light therapy was inconclusive (RR, 0.31; 95%CI, 0.07-1.31; very low-certainty evidence). Most of the included studies had concerns regarding the risk of bias, mainly due to a lack of…

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: 2,747 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