Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Clin Interv Aging ; 15: 2053-2061, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33173286

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Frailty identifies patients that have vulnerability to stress. Acute illness and hospitalization are stressors that may result in delirium and further accelerate the negative consequences of frailty. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether frailty, identified at hospital admission and as measured by a frailty index, is associated with incident delirium. METHODS: A retrospective, observational, cohort study was done at a Veterans hospital between January 2013 and March 2014. English-speaking patients over 55 years were eligible. Exclusion criteria included inability to complete baseline assessments due to pre-existing cognitive impairment, emergent surgery; and/or admission from a nursing home, pre-existing delirium, and those with psychiatric disease or substance use disorder. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Frailty index (FI) variables included cognitive screening, physical function and comorbidities. The FI was calculated as a proportion of possible deficits (range 0 to 1; higher scores indicate increased frailty). Incident delirium was measured daily by an expert clinician interview. RESULTS: A total of 247 patients were admitted and 218 met inclusion/exclusion criteria, with a mean age of 71.54 years (SD = 9.53 years) and were predominantly white (92.7%) and male (91.7%). Participants were grouped using FI ranges as non-frail (FI <0.25, n=56 (26%)), pre-frail (FI =0.25-0.35, n=86 (39%)), and frail (FI >0.35, n=76 (35%)). Pre-frailty and frailty were associated with incident delirium (non-frail: 3.6% vs pre-frail: 20.9% vs frail: 29.3%, p=0.001) and total delirium days (mean day =non-frail 0.04 vs pre-frail 0.35 vs frail 0.57, p=0.003). After adjustment for sociodemographic factors, pre-frail (adjusted OR=5.64, 95% CI: 1.23, 25.99) and frail status (adjusted OR=6.80, 95% CI: 1.38, 33.45) were independently associated with delirium. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that a frailty index is independently associated with incident delirium and suggests that admission assessments for frailty may identify patients at high risk of developing delirium.


Assuntos
Delírio/diagnóstico , Idoso Fragilizado/estatística & dados numéricos , Fragilidade/epidemiologia , Hospitalização/estatística & dados numéricos , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Estudos de Coortes , Comorbidade , Delírio/epidemiologia , Feminino , Avaliação Geriátrica/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Masculino , Saúde Mental , Estudos Retrospectivos , Medição de Risco , Fatores de Risco
2.
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf ; 25(12): 1354-1360, 2016 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27365094

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Because of an increasing demand for quality comparative effectiveness research (CER), methods guidance documents have been published, such as those from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Our objective was to identify CER methods guidance documents and compare them to produce a summary of important recommendations which could serve as a consensus of CER method recommendations. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify CER methods guidance documents published through 2014. Identified documents were analyzed for methods guidance recommendations. Individual recommendations were categorized to determine the degree of overlap. RESULTS: We identified nine methods guidance documents, which contained a total of 312 recommendations, 97% of which were present in two or more documents. All nine documents recommended transparency and adaptation for relevant stakeholders in the interpretation and dissemination of results. Other frequently shared CER methods recommendations included: study design and operational definitions should be developed a priori and allow for replication (n = 8 documents); focus on areas with gaps in current clinical knowledge that are relevant to decision-makers (n = 7); validity of measures, instruments, and data should be assessed and discussed (n = 7); outcomes, including benefits and harms, should be clinically meaningful, and objectively measured (n = 7). Assessment for and strategies to minimize bias (n = 6 documents), confounding (n = 6), and heterogeneity (n = 4) were also commonly shared recommendations between documents. CONCLUSIONS: We offer a field-consensus guide based on nine CER methods guidance documents that will aid researchers in designing CER studies and applying CER methods. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Comparativa da Efetividade/métodos , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde/métodos , Projetos de Pesquisa , Viés , Fatores de Confusão Epidemiológicos , Consenso , Humanos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA