Martinez 2012.

Study characteristics
Methods	Design: RCT of a multi‐component delirium prevention intervention provided by family members Date of study: September 2009‐June 2010 Power calculation: yes Inclusion criteria: all patients at risk for delirium (> 70 years, cognitive impairment (MMSE < 24 prior to admission) alcoholism or metabolic imbalance at admission) Exclusion criteria: delirium at admission, no family support, admitted to ward other than general medicine, those in a room with more than two beds
Participants	Number in study: 287 Country: Chile Setting: internal medicine ward of acute hospital Age: mean age 78.1 years (SD 6.3) in intervention group; 78.3 years (6.1) in control group Sex: 42% female in intervention group; 33% female in control group Co‐morbidity: median Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) 2 (interquartile range, IQR, 1‐4) in intervention group, median CCI 2 (IQR 1‐3) in control group Dementia: 9% in intervention group, 8% in control group Frailty: not reported
Interventions	Intervention: multi‐component non‐pharmacological intervention provided by family members, including education regarding confusional syndromes; provision of a clock and calendar; avoidance of sensory deprivation (glasses, denture and hearing aids available as needed); presence of familiar objects in the room; re‐orientation of patient provided by family members; extended visiting times (5 hours daily). Control: usual care from the attending physician
Outcomes	Outcomes reported: ‐ Incident delirium, measured using CAM performed daily, throughout admission ‐ Duration of delirium ‐ Length of admission ‐ Falls Outcomes not reported: none Frequency of outcomes assessment: Daily during hospital stay
Notes	Funding source: not reported Declarations of interest: quote: "No conflicts of interest declared" Delirium excluded at enrolment
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated random numbers
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomisation performed by a statistician who was not involved in data collection
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Participants and personnel unblinded due to the nature of the intervention
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Outcome assessors unblinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Intention‐to‐treat analysis performed, 5% loss to follow‐up
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to assess
Other bias	Low risk	No evidence of other bias