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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |