This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
4AT is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability
The following Wikipedia contributorhas declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Avoreardon(talk·contribs) This user has declared a connection. ((Optional) I was the co-author of this tool, and some of the cited scientific references. I am also the author of the website www.the4AT.com which provides the tool and its translations. I have no financial interest in the tool or the tool website. I have not been paid to contribute the article on the 4AT. I am a member of staff of the University of Edinburgh, and a doctor working for NHS Lothian in Edinburgh)
Regarding "This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. (May 2020)" - can a more experienced editor advise on this?
Regarding "This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia. (May 2020)" - the article now has a lot of links, and hard to see that many more could be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avoreardon (talk • contribs) 07:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Conflict-of-interest disclosure: I am Professor Alasdair MacLullich. I was involved in developing the 4AT, I am an author on some of the papers cited in this article, and I am connected with the official 4AT website. I am therefore not editing the article directly and ask an independent editor to assess this proposal under WP:COI and WP:MEDRS. I have no request that any source be retained merely because I authored it.
Extended content
The article has carried an excessive-citations banner since July 2025. I do not think the banner should simply be removed. I have prepared a source-by-source cleanup proposal against revision 1356896714 and would be grateful if an independent editor could check and implement only the parts they consider appropriate.
The main proposed changes are:
remove the indirect SymptomFind citation and replace citation piles with systematic reviews and current national guidance;
retain the official 4AT site only for the form, scoring and translations, not as the principal source for biomedical recommendations;
replace the dynamic “32 studies/>6000 patients” claim with the 2020 systematic review and NICE's 2023 independent evidence review;
replace the six-study post-2019 validation pile with the NICE evidence review;
rewrite “Recommended use” to follow current NICE recommendations and the revised Australian Delirium Clinical Care Standard, removing the self-published Delirium Words citations and the unsupported “1–2 times per day” rule;
fix or remove the malformed `localhost:25512` URL in the current Korte citation; and
keep uniquely informative primary findings only with explicit single-study attribution (hospice validation, 82,770-admission outcomes, dementia association and recovery assessment).
Suggested high-level wording is set out below. The principal independent sources are:
The 4 'A's Test (4AT) is a brief bedside assessment used to identify possible delirium. It combines assessment of alertness and recent change or fluctuation with short tests of orientation and attention. The cognitive items mean that scores may also indicate cognitive impairment, although a positive 4AT result is not by itself a clinical diagnosis.
2. Description
The 4AT was first published online in 2011 and is designed for rapid use by healthcare practitioners in general hospital and community settings without special training. It is not the tool recommended by NICE for critical care or the recovery room after surgery. Systematic reviews and national evidence reviews have evaluated the 4AT across emergency, medical, surgical, stroke and long-term-care settings. A 2024 validation study also evaluated it in hospice inpatients. NICE recommends a 4AT assessment when indicators of delirium are identified, while the revised Australian Delirium Clinical Care Standard includes it among validated assessment tools. A 2025 scoping review found that national hip-fracture registries use delirium and cognitive assessments including the 4AT.
2. Description — real-world implementation
A 2024 systematic review found that delirium-detection tools, including the 4AT, had varying completion and positive-score rates when implemented in routine hospital practice. In a two-centre observational study of 82,770 emergency admissions, positive 4AT scores were associated with mortality, length of stay and days at home after admission.
3. Parameters
The total score ranges from 0 to 12. A score of 4 or more indicates possible delirium, while a score of 1–3 may indicate cognitive impairment. Altered alertness and acute or fluctuating change are central features in delirium assessment, which is why either of those 4AT items can by itself produce a score of 4. The cognitive items include an “untestable” option so the assessment can still be completed when verbal testing is not possible.
4. Psychometric properties
A 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 studies reported pooled sensitivity and specificity of 88% for delirium detection. NICE's 2023 evidence review, drawing on six reviews and 19 primary studies, reported median sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 88% and considered the evidence sufficient to recommend the 4AT when indicators of delirium are present. A multicentre prospective comparative diagnostic test-accuracy study found higher sensitivity and similar specificity for the 4AT compared with the Confusion Assessment Method. Large routine-data studies have also reported associations between 4AT score bands, later recorded dementia and adverse hospital outcomes; these observational associations do not establish causation.
5. Recommended use
NICE recommends using the 4AT when indicators of delirium are identified; in critical care or the recovery room after surgery it recommends CAM-ICU or ICDSC instead. If the assessment indicates delirium, a healthcare professional with relevant expertise should make the final diagnosis. A 2025 validation study reported that the 4AT can also be used to assess recovery from active delirium. The Australian Delirium Clinical Care Standard notes that some delirium assessment tools are not appropriate for repeated monitoring and lists DOS, RADAR, mRASS, SQiD and Nu-DESC as options for monitoring incident delirium.
5. Recommended use — comparison
The 4AT is one of several delirium-assessment tools, which differ in purpose, administration time, training requirements and diagnostic performance.
6. Languages
The official 4AT site provides translated versions of the instrument in multiple languages.
Please feel free to reject, modify or further reduce the proposed text and sources. In particular, I would welcome an independent judgment on whether the palliative-care, dementia-association and recovery studies add enough distinct encyclopaedic value to retain. I suggest leaving the maintenance banner in place until an uninvolved editor has completed the cleanup and reviewed the result. Avoreardon (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
AI-assistance disclosure: I used OpenAI Codex, a large language model, to help organise and draft this request from the source review. I authorised its submission. The request reflects the changes I am asking independent editors to consider; I ask editors to verify the cited sources and decide independently what, if anything, should be implemented. Avoreardon (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2026 (UTC)Reply
Unable to review
Your edit request could not be reviewed because the request is not formatted correctly.
The citation style predominantly used by the 4AT article appears to be Citation Style 1. The citation style used in the edit request consists of bare URL's.[a] Any requested edit of yours which may be implemented will need to resemble the current style already in use in the article – in this case, CS1. (SeeWP:CITEVAR.)
Citation ref tags have not been placed within the requested text indicating which portions of the text the source is referencing. (SeeWP:INTEGRITY.)
In the collapsed section below titled Request edit examples, I have illustrated two: The first shows how the edit request was submitted; the second shows how requests should be submitted in the future.
Request edit examples
NINCORRECT
The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles, while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles. The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.
In the example above there are three URL's provided with the claim statements, but these URL's have not been placed using Citation Style 1, which is the style predominantly used by the 4AT article. Additionally, ref tags have not been placed within the text at the exact positions where the information they reference resides. Using the correct style and the correct positioning of the ref tags, the WikiFormatted text should resemble the following:
YCORRECT
The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles,<ref>{{cite book|last1=Sjöblad|first1=Tristan|title=The Sun|url=http://www.booksource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2020|page=1}}</ref> while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Harinath|first1=Prisha|title=Size of the Moon|journal=Science|issue=78|volume=51|url=http://www.journalsource.com|date=2020|page=46}}</ref> The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Uemura|first1=Shu|title=The Sun's Heat|url=http://www.websource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2020|page=2}}</ref>
Which displays as:
The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles,[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.[3]
References
^ Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2020, p. 1.
^ Harinath, Prisha. "Size of the Moon", Science, 51(78):46. 2020.
^ Uemura, Shū. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2020, p. 2.
In the example above the references have been formatted according to Citation Style 1, which shows the author, the source's name, date, etc. Also, the ref tags are placed in the exact location where the text which they reference resides. As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, edit requests such yours are generally expected to have this formatting done before the request is submitted for review.
Kindly rewrite your edit request so that it aligns more with the second example shown in the collapsed section above, and feel free to re-submit that edit request at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions about this formatting please don't hesitate to ask myself or another editor.
Notes
↑The use of bare URLs as references is a style which is acceptable for use in Wikipedia. However, general practice dictates that the style already in use for an article be the one that is subsequently used for all future additions unless changed by editorial consensus.
Unable to review 
