Mini-Cog对术后谵妄的预测能力:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q3 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Shugo Yajima, Kohei Hirose, Hitoshi Masuda
{"title":"Mini-Cog对术后谵妄的预测能力:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Shugo Yajima, Kohei Hirose, Hitoshi Masuda","doi":"10.1111/ggi.70067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aims to determine the predictive value of the preoperative Mini-Cognitive Assessment Instrument (Mini-Cog) for postoperative delirium (POD), a significant complication in older surgical patients. Given its widespread recommendation despite unclear predictive utility, we will conduct the first meta-analysis to synthesize the available evidence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were searched from inception to May 2024. Studies evaluating the association between preoperative Mini-Cog scores and POD were included. Two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction. The methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs), sensitivity, and specificity. Sensitivity analyses were performed based on standardized cutoff values and POD assessment methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixteen studies involving 4980 patients were included. Participants' mean/median ages ranged from 70 to 80 years, and the percentage of patients scoring below the Mini-Cog cutoff varied from 12.5% to 60.5%. Low Mini-Cog scores were significantly associated with increased POD risk (OR = 3.79; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.81-5.12; I<sup>2</sup> = 57%). The Mini-Cog demonstrated a pooled specificity of 0.80 and sensitivity of 0.50 for POD prediction. Sensitivity analysis of studies using standardized cutoffs (<3) and validated POD assessment tools yielded an OR of 3.40 (95% CI = 2.56-4.53). Half of the included studies showed a low risk of bias across all QUADAS-2 domains. Publication bias assessment using funnel plots and Egger's test showed no significant bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Mini-Cog shows moderate predictive ability for POD, with high specificity but limited sensitivity. While it may be valuable as part of comprehensive preoperative assessment, its moderate sensitivity suggests it should not be used as the sole predictor. The variability in surgical populations and assessment methods highlights the need for standardization. Future research should focus on establishing consistent methodologies and exploring the Mini-Cog's efficacy in specific surgical populations to enhance its clinical utility in POD risk stratification. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2025; ••: ••-••.</p>","PeriodicalId":12546,"journal":{"name":"Geriatrics & Gerontology International","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predictive ability of Mini-Cog for postoperative delirium: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Shugo Yajima, Kohei Hirose, Hitoshi Masuda\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ggi.70067\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aims to determine the predictive value of the preoperative Mini-Cognitive Assessment Instrument (Mini-Cog) for postoperative delirium (POD), a significant complication in older surgical patients. Given its widespread recommendation despite unclear predictive utility, we will conduct the first meta-analysis to synthesize the available evidence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were searched from inception to May 2024. Studies evaluating the association between preoperative Mini-Cog scores and POD were included. Two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction. The methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs), sensitivity, and specificity. Sensitivity analyses were performed based on standardized cutoff values and POD assessment methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixteen studies involving 4980 patients were included. Participants' mean/median ages ranged from 70 to 80 years, and the percentage of patients scoring below the Mini-Cog cutoff varied from 12.5% to 60.5%. Low Mini-Cog scores were significantly associated with increased POD risk (OR = 3.79; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.81-5.12; I<sup>2</sup> = 57%). The Mini-Cog demonstrated a pooled specificity of 0.80 and sensitivity of 0.50 for POD prediction. Sensitivity analysis of studies using standardized cutoffs (<3) and validated POD assessment tools yielded an OR of 3.40 (95% CI = 2.56-4.53). Half of the included studies showed a low risk of bias across all QUADAS-2 domains. Publication bias assessment using funnel plots and Egger's test showed no significant bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Mini-Cog shows moderate predictive ability for POD, with high specificity but limited sensitivity. While it may be valuable as part of comprehensive preoperative assessment, its moderate sensitivity suggests it should not be used as the sole predictor. The variability in surgical populations and assessment methods highlights the need for standardization. Future research should focus on establishing consistent methodologies and exploring the Mini-Cog's efficacy in specific surgical populations to enhance its clinical utility in POD risk stratification. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2025; ••: ••-••.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12546,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Geriatrics & Gerontology International\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Geriatrics & Gerontology International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.70067\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geriatrics & Gerontology International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.70067","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在确定术前迷你认知评估仪(Mini-Cog)对老年外科患者术后谵妄(POD)的预测价值。尽管预测效用不明确,但它被广泛推荐,我们将进行第一次综合现有证据的荟萃分析。方法:根据PRISMA指南进行系统评价和荟萃分析。电子数据库(Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Library和Web of Science)从成立到2024年5月进行了检索。纳入了评估术前Mini-Cog评分与POD之间关系的研究。两名独立审稿人进行研究选择和数据提取。使用诊断准确性研究质量评估-2 (QUADAS-2)工具评估方法学质量。随机效应模型用于计算合并优势比(or)、敏感性和特异性。根据标准化截止值和POD评价方法进行敏感性分析。结果:纳入16项研究,共4980例患者。参与者的平均/中位年龄从70岁到80岁不等,评分低于Mini-Cog临界值的患者百分比从12.5%到60.5%不等。低Mini-Cog评分与POD风险增加显著相关(OR = 3.79;95%置信区间[CI] = 2.81-5.12;i2 = 57%)。Mini-Cog预测POD的总特异性为0.80,敏感性为0.50。结论:Mini-Cog对POD的预测能力中等,特异性高,但敏感性有限。虽然它作为全面术前评估的一部分可能是有价值的,但它的中等敏感性表明它不应该被用作唯一的预测指标。手术人群和评估方法的可变性突出了标准化的必要性。未来的研究应侧重于建立一致的方法,并探索Mini-Cog在特定手术人群中的疗效,以提高其在POD风险分层中的临床应用。Geriatr Gerontol 2025;••: ••-••.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Predictive ability of Mini-Cog for postoperative delirium: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aim: This study aims to determine the predictive value of the preoperative Mini-Cognitive Assessment Instrument (Mini-Cog) for postoperative delirium (POD), a significant complication in older surgical patients. Given its widespread recommendation despite unclear predictive utility, we will conduct the first meta-analysis to synthesize the available evidence.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were searched from inception to May 2024. Studies evaluating the association between preoperative Mini-Cog scores and POD were included. Two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction. The methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs), sensitivity, and specificity. Sensitivity analyses were performed based on standardized cutoff values and POD assessment methods.

Results: Sixteen studies involving 4980 patients were included. Participants' mean/median ages ranged from 70 to 80 years, and the percentage of patients scoring below the Mini-Cog cutoff varied from 12.5% to 60.5%. Low Mini-Cog scores were significantly associated with increased POD risk (OR = 3.79; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.81-5.12; I2 = 57%). The Mini-Cog demonstrated a pooled specificity of 0.80 and sensitivity of 0.50 for POD prediction. Sensitivity analysis of studies using standardized cutoffs (<3) and validated POD assessment tools yielded an OR of 3.40 (95% CI = 2.56-4.53). Half of the included studies showed a low risk of bias across all QUADAS-2 domains. Publication bias assessment using funnel plots and Egger's test showed no significant bias.

Conclusions: The Mini-Cog shows moderate predictive ability for POD, with high specificity but limited sensitivity. While it may be valuable as part of comprehensive preoperative assessment, its moderate sensitivity suggests it should not be used as the sole predictor. The variability in surgical populations and assessment methods highlights the need for standardization. Future research should focus on establishing consistent methodologies and exploring the Mini-Cog's efficacy in specific surgical populations to enhance its clinical utility in POD risk stratification. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2025; ••: ••-••.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
6.10%
发文量
189
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Geriatrics & Gerontology International is the official Journal of the Japan Geriatrics Society, reflecting the growing importance of the subject area in developed economies and their particular significance to a country like Japan with a large aging population. Geriatrics & Gerontology International is now an international publication with contributions from around the world and published four times per year.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信