IntroductionDelirium is a common complication in the intensive care unit. The attention of researchers has shifted from the treatment to the prevention of the syndrome necessitating the study of associated risk factors.MethodsIn a multicenter study at one university hospital, two community hospitals and one private hospital, all consecutive newly admitted adult patients were screened and included when reaching a Glasgow Coma Scale greater than 10. Nurse researchers assessed the patients for delirium using the NEECHAM Confusion Scale. Risk factors covered four domains: patient characteristics, chronic pathology, acute illness and environmental factors. Odds ratios were calculated using univariate binary logistic regression.ResultsA total population of 523 patients was screened for delirium. The studied factors showed some variability according to the participating hospitals. The overall delirium incidence was 30%. Age was not a significant risk factor. Intensive smoking (OR 2.04), daily use of more than three units of alcohol (OR 3.23), and living alone at home (OR 1.94), however, contributed to the development of delirium. In the domain of chronic pathology a pre-existing cognitive impairment was an important risk factor (OR 2.41). In the domain of factors related to acute illness the use of drains, tubes and catheters, acute illness scores, the use of psychoactive medication, a preceding period of sedation, coma or mechanical ventilation showed significant risk with odds ratios ranging from 1.04 to 13.66. Environmental risk factors were isolation (OR 2.89), the absence of visit (OR 3.73), the absence of visible daylight (OR 2.39), a transfer from another ward (OR 1.98), and the use of physical restraints (OR 33.84).ConclusionsThis multicenter study indicated risk factors for delirium in the intensive care unit related to patient characteristics, chronic pathology, acute illness, and the environment. Particularly among those related to the acute illness and the environment, several factors are suitable for preventive action.
This study clearly indicates that trunk performance is still impaired in non-acute and chronic stroke patients. When planning future follow-up studies, use of the Trunk Impairment Scale has the advantage that it has no ceiling effect.
The purpose of this clinical trial is to compare the effectiveness of a scapular-focused treatment with a control therapy in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome. Therefore, a randomized clinical trial with a blinded assessor was used in 22 patients with shoulder impingement syndrome. The primary outcome measures included self-reported shoulder disability and pain. Next, patients were evaluated regarding scapular positioning and shoulder muscle strength. The scapular-focused treatment included stretching and scapular motor control training. The control therapy included stretching, muscle friction, and eccentric rotator cuff training. Main outcome measures were the shoulder disability questionnaire, diagnostic tests for shoulder impingement syndrome, clinical tests for scapular positioning, shoulder pain (visual analog scale; VAS), and muscle strength. A large clinically important treatment effect in favor of scapular motor control training was found in self-reported disability (Cohen's d = 0.93, p = 0.025), and a moderate to large clinically important improvement in pain during the Neer test, Hawkins test, and empty can test (Cohen's d 0.76, 1.04, and 0.92, respectively). In addition, the experimental group demonstrated a moderate (Cohen's d = 0.67) improvement in self-experienced pain at rest (VAS), whereas the control group did not change. The effects were maintained at three months follow-up.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.