Evidence surveillance

Review status and known gaps

The catalogue is broad, but it is not presented as a completed systematic review. This page separates work already completed from work that still needs independent review.

Status at release v3.1.0 · 19 July 2026.

Public catalogue

Every public profile has a record class, family/count disposition, evidence-stage label, source or source-search state, instrument-access state, rights-check date and approximately 200 words of independent commentary. Profiles distinguish the instrument, original paper, later validation evidence, secondary summaries and rights information.

Diagnostic-accuracy audit workspace

The current working census, compiled 16 July 2026, contains 750 PubMed census records, 312 publication records, 396 study evaluations, 576 extracted accuracy results and 365 chronological tool–study records judged eligible at the current screening stage. It also contains 222 unreviewed candidate leads. These are working-audit counts, not claims that every record is unique, eligible after full text or independently adjudicated.

Tool pages therefore say “DTA studies identified in this audit.” A zero means that no eligible study has been identified in the present dataset; it does not prove that no study exists.

Discovery sources used

• A defined PubMed diagnostic-test-accuracy census and linked primary records.
• Original development and validation papers, publisher metadata and developer resources.
• Systematic reviews, reference chaining and an independently compiled Delirium Words inventory.
• The NIDUS Delirium Measurement Info Cards as one secondary cross-check, not as the source of this site’s wording or taxonomy.
• Targeted searches for recent, non-English, setting-specific, digital and emerging tools.

Completed checks for v3.1.0

• Curator factual, classification and source review of all public profiles.
• Automated tests of record relationships, count rules, profile length, rights fields and publication holds.
• Internal-route and external-link checking, with redirects and failures reviewed separately.
• Keyboard, reflow, reduced-motion, forced-colour and mobile interaction improvements with automated interface tests.
• Live checks of canonical URLs, structured data, privacy controls, page headers, error handling and representative profile routes.

Open limitations

• Search limitations: database coverage, terminology, indexing delay and inaccessible full text can hide records.
• Selection limitations: one curator remains responsible for final boundary decisions.
• Evidence limitations: source verification is not risk-of-bias assessment, validation or recommendation.
• Language limitations: non-English tools and validations are probably under-represented.
• Rights limitations: access and licence terms can change after the dated check.
• Usability limitations: automated and curator testing does not replace independent testing with clinicians, researchers, patients, families and screen-reader users.

Next review work

1. Complete screening of unresolved discovery leads and document exclusion reasons.
2. Undertake duplicate independent screening and clinical adjudication.
3. Resolve overlapping cohorts before presenting study totals as systematic counts.
4. Repeat link, rights and literature surveillance at the scheduled interval.
5. Commission external accessibility, user and legal review and date the results publicly.