ICU sedation, delirium & recovery
Understanding the Unique Ethical Challenges in Randomized Controlled Trials of Delirium Interventions for Older Adults: A Rapid Review
Study context
- Population
- RCTs of delirium interventions in older adults, published 2020 to 2023 (PubMed, CINAHL, English language)RCTs (11 published protocols)
- Participants
- 51 participants
- Comparison
- Trials with fuller vs little to no reporting of ethical processes
- Fuller reportingn = 16
- Little to no reportingn = 19reference
- Primary endpoint
- Reporting of key ethical processes for older adults (approval, recruitment, consent, retention)
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Full reporting of ethical processes (proportion of 51 RCTs)
- Who provided consent
- 88%
- Consent approach
- 88%
- Ethical approval details
- 63%
- Safety assessments
- 59%
- How, where and when participants were recruited
- 49%
- Who recruited participants
- 31%
- Who obtained consent
- 22%
- How trial information was provided
- 27%
- Capacity assessed prior to consent
- 10%
- How participants were supported through trial design or processes
- 18%
- In-trial communications
- 8%
Further findings
Separately published protocol
P < 0.001
Conducted outside of China
P < 0.001
Median
| Outcome | Fuller reporting | Little to no reporting | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consent rate | 56% | 96% | P < 0.01 |
| Retention rate | 89% | 96% | P < 0.05 |
Original publication
Understanding the Unique Ethical Challenges in Randomized Controlled Trials of Delirium Interventions for Older Adults: A Rapid Review. Anesth Analg. Published 16 February 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →