Cargando…

Concordance between DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria for delirium diagnosis in a pooled database of 768 prospectively evaluated patients using the delirium rating scale-revised-98

BACKGROUND: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual fifth edition (DSM-5) provides new criteria for delirium diagnosis. We examined delirium diagnosis using these new criteria compared with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual fourth edition (DSM-IV) in a large dataset of patients assessed for deliri...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Meagher, David J, Morandi, Alessandro, Inouye, Sharon K, Ely, Wes, Adamis, Dimitrios, Maclullich, Alasdair J, Rudolph, James L, Neufeld, Karin, Leonard, Maeve, Bellelli, Giuseppe, Davis, Daniel, Teodorczuk, Andrew, Kreisel, Stefan, Thomas, Christine, Hasemann, Wolfgang, Timmons, Suzanne, O’Regan, Niamh, Grover, Sandeep, Jabbar, Faiza, Cullen, Walter, Dunne, Colum, Kamholz, Barbara, Van Munster, Barbara C, De Rooij, Sophia E, De Jonghe, Jos, Trzepacz, Paula T
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4207319/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25266390
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0164-8
_version_ 1782340949670625280
author Meagher, David J
Morandi, Alessandro
Inouye, Sharon K
Ely, Wes
Adamis, Dimitrios
Maclullich, Alasdair J
Rudolph, James L
Neufeld, Karin
Leonard, Maeve
Bellelli, Giuseppe
Davis, Daniel
Teodorczuk, Andrew
Kreisel, Stefan
Thomas, Christine
Hasemann, Wolfgang
Timmons, Suzanne
O’Regan, Niamh
Grover, Sandeep
Jabbar, Faiza
Cullen, Walter
Dunne, Colum
Kamholz, Barbara
Van Munster, Barbara C
De Rooij, Sophia E
De Jonghe, Jos
Trzepacz, Paula T
author_facet Meagher, David J
Morandi, Alessandro
Inouye, Sharon K
Ely, Wes
Adamis, Dimitrios
Maclullich, Alasdair J
Rudolph, James L
Neufeld, Karin
Leonard, Maeve
Bellelli, Giuseppe
Davis, Daniel
Teodorczuk, Andrew
Kreisel, Stefan
Thomas, Christine
Hasemann, Wolfgang
Timmons, Suzanne
O’Regan, Niamh
Grover, Sandeep
Jabbar, Faiza
Cullen, Walter
Dunne, Colum
Kamholz, Barbara
Van Munster, Barbara C
De Rooij, Sophia E
De Jonghe, Jos
Trzepacz, Paula T
author_sort Meagher, David J
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual fifth edition (DSM-5) provides new criteria for delirium diagnosis. We examined delirium diagnosis using these new criteria compared with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual fourth edition (DSM-IV) in a large dataset of patients assessed for delirium and related presentations. METHODS: Patient data (n = 768) from six prospectively collected cohorts, clinically assessed using DSM-IV and the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R98), were pooled. Post hoc application of DRS-R98 item scores were used to rate DSM-5 criteria. ‘Strict’ and ‘relaxed’ DSM-5 criteria to ascertain delirium were compared to rates determined by DSM-IV. RESULTS: Using DSM-IV by clinical assessment, delirium was found in 510/768 patients (66%). Strict DSM-5 criteria categorized 158 as delirious including 155 (30%) with DSM-IV delirium, whereas relaxed DSM-5 criteria identified 466 as delirious, including 455 (89%) diagnosed by DSM-IV (P <0.001). The concordance between the different diagnostic methods was: 53% (ĸ = 0.22) between DSM-IV and the strict DSM-5, 91% (ĸ = 0.82) between the DSM-IV and relaxed DSM-5 criteria and 60% (ĸ = 0.29) between the strict versus relaxed DSM-5 criteria. Only 155 cases were identified as delirium by all three approaches. The 55 (11%) patients with DSM-IV delirium who were not rated as delirious by relaxed criteria had lower mean DRS-R98 total scores than those rated as delirious (13.7 ± 3.9 versus 23.7 ± 6.0; P <0.001). Conversely, mean DRS-R98 score (21.1 ± 6.4) for the 70% not rated as delirious by strict DSM-5 criteria was consistent with suggested cutoff scores for full syndromal delirium. Only 11 cases met DSM-5 criteria that were not deemed to have DSM-IV delirium. CONCLUSIONS: The concordance between DSM-IV and the new DSM-5 delirium criteria varies considerably depending on the interpretation of criteria. Overly-strict adherence for some new text details in DSM-5 criteria would reduce the number of delirium cases diagnosed; however, a more ‘relaxed’ approach renders DSM-5 criteria comparable to DSM-IV with minimal impact on their actual application and is thus recommended.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4207319
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42073192014-10-28 Concordance between DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria for delirium diagnosis in a pooled database of 768 prospectively evaluated patients using the delirium rating scale-revised-98 Meagher, David J Morandi, Alessandro Inouye, Sharon K Ely, Wes Adamis, Dimitrios Maclullich, Alasdair J Rudolph, James L Neufeld, Karin Leonard, Maeve Bellelli, Giuseppe Davis, Daniel Teodorczuk, Andrew Kreisel, Stefan Thomas, Christine Hasemann, Wolfgang Timmons, Suzanne O’Regan, Niamh Grover, Sandeep Jabbar, Faiza Cullen, Walter Dunne, Colum Kamholz, Barbara Van Munster, Barbara C De Rooij, Sophia E De Jonghe, Jos Trzepacz, Paula T BMC Med Research Article BACKGROUND: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual fifth edition (DSM-5) provides new criteria for delirium diagnosis. We examined delirium diagnosis using these new criteria compared with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual fourth edition (DSM-IV) in a large dataset of patients assessed for delirium and related presentations. METHODS: Patient data (n = 768) from six prospectively collected cohorts, clinically assessed using DSM-IV and the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R98), were pooled. Post hoc application of DRS-R98 item scores were used to rate DSM-5 criteria. ‘Strict’ and ‘relaxed’ DSM-5 criteria to ascertain delirium were compared to rates determined by DSM-IV. RESULTS: Using DSM-IV by clinical assessment, delirium was found in 510/768 patients (66%). Strict DSM-5 criteria categorized 158 as delirious including 155 (30%) with DSM-IV delirium, whereas relaxed DSM-5 criteria identified 466 as delirious, including 455 (89%) diagnosed by DSM-IV (P <0.001). The concordance between the different diagnostic methods was: 53% (ĸ = 0.22) between DSM-IV and the strict DSM-5, 91% (ĸ = 0.82) between the DSM-IV and relaxed DSM-5 criteria and 60% (ĸ = 0.29) between the strict versus relaxed DSM-5 criteria. Only 155 cases were identified as delirium by all three approaches. The 55 (11%) patients with DSM-IV delirium who were not rated as delirious by relaxed criteria had lower mean DRS-R98 total scores than those rated as delirious (13.7 ± 3.9 versus 23.7 ± 6.0; P <0.001). Conversely, mean DRS-R98 score (21.1 ± 6.4) for the 70% not rated as delirious by strict DSM-5 criteria was consistent with suggested cutoff scores for full syndromal delirium. Only 11 cases met DSM-5 criteria that were not deemed to have DSM-IV delirium. CONCLUSIONS: The concordance between DSM-IV and the new DSM-5 delirium criteria varies considerably depending on the interpretation of criteria. Overly-strict adherence for some new text details in DSM-5 criteria would reduce the number of delirium cases diagnosed; however, a more ‘relaxed’ approach renders DSM-5 criteria comparable to DSM-IV with minimal impact on their actual application and is thus recommended. BioMed Central 2014-09-30 /pmc/articles/PMC4207319/ /pubmed/25266390 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0164-8 Text en © Meagher et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Meagher, David J
Morandi, Alessandro
Inouye, Sharon K
Ely, Wes
Adamis, Dimitrios
Maclullich, Alasdair J
Rudolph, James L
Neufeld, Karin
Leonard, Maeve
Bellelli, Giuseppe
Davis, Daniel
Teodorczuk, Andrew
Kreisel, Stefan
Thomas, Christine
Hasemann, Wolfgang
Timmons, Suzanne
O’Regan, Niamh
Grover, Sandeep
Jabbar, Faiza
Cullen, Walter
Dunne, Colum
Kamholz, Barbara
Van Munster, Barbara C
De Rooij, Sophia E
De Jonghe, Jos
Trzepacz, Paula T
Concordance between DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria for delirium diagnosis in a pooled database of 768 prospectively evaluated patients using the delirium rating scale-revised-98
title Concordance between DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria for delirium diagnosis in a pooled database of 768 prospectively evaluated patients using the delirium rating scale-revised-98
title_full Concordance between DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria for delirium diagnosis in a pooled database of 768 prospectively evaluated patients using the delirium rating scale-revised-98
title_fullStr Concordance between DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria for delirium diagnosis in a pooled database of 768 prospectively evaluated patients using the delirium rating scale-revised-98
title_full_unstemmed Concordance between DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria for delirium diagnosis in a pooled database of 768 prospectively evaluated patients using the delirium rating scale-revised-98
title_short Concordance between DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria for delirium diagnosis in a pooled database of 768 prospectively evaluated patients using the delirium rating scale-revised-98
title_sort concordance between dsm-iv and dsm-5 criteria for delirium diagnosis in a pooled database of 768 prospectively evaluated patients using the delirium rating scale-revised-98
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4207319/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25266390
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0164-8
work_keys_str_mv AT meagherdavidj concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98
AT morandialessandro concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98
AT inouyesharonk concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98
AT elywes concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98
AT adamisdimitrios concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98
AT maclullichalasdairj concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98
AT rudolphjamesl concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98
AT neufeldkarin concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98
AT leonardmaeve concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98
AT bellelligiuseppe concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98
AT davisdaniel concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98
AT teodorczukandrew concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98
AT kreiselstefan concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98
AT thomaschristine concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98
AT hasemannwolfgang concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98
AT timmonssuzanne concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98
AT oreganniamh concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98
AT groversandeep concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98
AT jabbarfaiza concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98
AT cullenwalter concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98
AT dunnecolum concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98
AT kamholzbarbara concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98
AT vanmunsterbarbarac concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98
AT derooijsophiae concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98
AT dejonghejos concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98
AT trzepaczpaulat concordancebetweendsmivanddsm5criteriafordeliriumdiagnosisinapooleddatabaseof768prospectivelyevaluatedpatientsusingthedeliriumratingscalerevised98