Cargando…

Confusion assessment method: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy

BACKGROUND: Delirium is common in the early stages of hospitalization for a variety of acute and chronic diseases. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of two delirium screening tools, the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (C...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shi, Qiyun, Warren, Laura, Saposnik, Gustavo, MacDermid, Joy C
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3788697/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24092976
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S49520
_version_ 1782286339789553664
author Shi, Qiyun
Warren, Laura
Saposnik, Gustavo
MacDermid, Joy C
author_facet Shi, Qiyun
Warren, Laura
Saposnik, Gustavo
MacDermid, Joy C
author_sort Shi, Qiyun
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Delirium is common in the early stages of hospitalization for a variety of acute and chronic diseases. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of two delirium screening tools, the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychInfo for relevant articles published in English up to March 2013. We compared two screening tools to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV criteria. Two reviewers independently assessed studies to determine their eligibility, validity, and quality. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a bivariate model. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies (n = 2,442 patients) met the inclusion criteria. All studies demonstrated that these two scales can be administered within ten minutes, by trained clinical or research staff. The pooled sensitivities and specificity for CAM were 82% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 69%–91%) and 99% (95% CI: 87%–100%), and 81% (95% CI: 57%–93%) and 98% (95% CI: 86%–100%) for CAM-ICU, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both CAM and CAM-ICU are validated instruments for the diagnosis of delirium in a variety of medical settings. However, CAM and CAM-ICU both present higher specificity than sensitivity. Therefore, the use of these tools should not replace clinical judgment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3788697
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37886972013-10-03 Confusion assessment method: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy Shi, Qiyun Warren, Laura Saposnik, Gustavo MacDermid, Joy C Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat Review BACKGROUND: Delirium is common in the early stages of hospitalization for a variety of acute and chronic diseases. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of two delirium screening tools, the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychInfo for relevant articles published in English up to March 2013. We compared two screening tools to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV criteria. Two reviewers independently assessed studies to determine their eligibility, validity, and quality. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a bivariate model. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies (n = 2,442 patients) met the inclusion criteria. All studies demonstrated that these two scales can be administered within ten minutes, by trained clinical or research staff. The pooled sensitivities and specificity for CAM were 82% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 69%–91%) and 99% (95% CI: 87%–100%), and 81% (95% CI: 57%–93%) and 98% (95% CI: 86%–100%) for CAM-ICU, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both CAM and CAM-ICU are validated instruments for the diagnosis of delirium in a variety of medical settings. However, CAM and CAM-ICU both present higher specificity than sensitivity. Therefore, the use of these tools should not replace clinical judgment. Dove Medical Press 2013 2013-09-19 /pmc/articles/PMC3788697/ /pubmed/24092976 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S49520 Text en © 2013 Shi et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Ltd, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Ltd, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Review
Shi, Qiyun
Warren, Laura
Saposnik, Gustavo
MacDermid, Joy C
Confusion assessment method: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy
title Confusion assessment method: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy
title_full Confusion assessment method: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy
title_fullStr Confusion assessment method: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy
title_full_unstemmed Confusion assessment method: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy
title_short Confusion assessment method: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy
title_sort confusion assessment method: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3788697/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24092976
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S49520
work_keys_str_mv AT shiqiyun confusionassessmentmethodasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticaccuracy
AT warrenlaura confusionassessmentmethodasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticaccuracy
AT saposnikgustavo confusionassessmentmethodasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticaccuracy
AT macdermidjoyc confusionassessmentmethodasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticaccuracy