Cargando…

Delirium diagnosis without a gold standard: Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of combined delirium assessment tools

BACKGROUND: Fluctuating course of delirium and complexities of ICU care mean delirium symptoms are hard to identify or commonly confused with other disorders. Delirium is difficult to diagnose, and clinicians and researchers may combine assessments from multiple tools. We evaluated diagnostic accura...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moss, Stephana J., Hee Lee, Chel, Doig, Christopher J., Whalen-Browne, Liam, Stelfox, Henry T., Fiest, Kirsten M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9015135/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35436316
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267110
_version_ 1784688323753672704
author Moss, Stephana J.
Hee Lee, Chel
Doig, Christopher J.
Whalen-Browne, Liam
Stelfox, Henry T.
Fiest, Kirsten M.
author_facet Moss, Stephana J.
Hee Lee, Chel
Doig, Christopher J.
Whalen-Browne, Liam
Stelfox, Henry T.
Fiest, Kirsten M.
author_sort Moss, Stephana J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Fluctuating course of delirium and complexities of ICU care mean delirium symptoms are hard to identify or commonly confused with other disorders. Delirium is difficult to diagnose, and clinicians and researchers may combine assessments from multiple tools. We evaluated diagnostic accuracy of different combinations of delirium assessments performed in each enrolled patient. METHODS: Data were obtained from a previously conducted cross-sectional study. Eligible adult patients who remained admitted to ICU for >24 hours with at least one family member present were consecutively enrolled as patient-family dyads. Clinical delirium assessments (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist [ICSDC] and Confusion Assessment Method-ICU [CAM-ICU]) were completed twice daily by bedside nurse or trained research assistant, respectively. Family delirium assessments (Family Confusion Assessment Method and Sour Seven) were completed once daily by family members. We pooled all delirium assessment tools in a single two-class latent model and pairwise (i.e., combined, clinical or family assessments) Bayesian analyses. RESULTS: Seventy-three patient-family dyads were included. Among clinical delirium assessments, the ICDSC had lower sensitivity (0.72; 95% Bayesian Credible [BC] interval 0.54–0.92) and higher specificity (0.90; 95%BC, 0.82–0.97) using Bayesian analyses compared to pooled latent class analysis and CAM-ICU had higher sensitivity (0.90; 95%BC, 0.70–1.00) and higher specificity (0.94; 95%BC, 0.80–1.00). Among family delirium assessments, the Family Confusion Assessment Method had higher sensitivity (0.83; 95%BC, 0.71–0.92) and higher specificity (0.93; 95%BC, 0.84–0.98) using Bayesian analyses compared to pooled latent class analysis and the Sour Seven had higher specificity (0.85; 95%BC, 0.67–0.99) but lower sensitivity (0.64; 95%BC 0.47–0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Results from delirium assessment tools are often combined owing to imperfect reference standards for delirium measurement. Pairwise Bayesian analyses that explicitly accounted for each tool’s (performed within same patient) prior sensitivity and specificity indicate that two combined clinical or two combined family delirium assessment tools have fair diagnostic accuracy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9015135
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90151352022-04-19 Delirium diagnosis without a gold standard: Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of combined delirium assessment tools Moss, Stephana J. Hee Lee, Chel Doig, Christopher J. Whalen-Browne, Liam Stelfox, Henry T. Fiest, Kirsten M. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Fluctuating course of delirium and complexities of ICU care mean delirium symptoms are hard to identify or commonly confused with other disorders. Delirium is difficult to diagnose, and clinicians and researchers may combine assessments from multiple tools. We evaluated diagnostic accuracy of different combinations of delirium assessments performed in each enrolled patient. METHODS: Data were obtained from a previously conducted cross-sectional study. Eligible adult patients who remained admitted to ICU for >24 hours with at least one family member present were consecutively enrolled as patient-family dyads. Clinical delirium assessments (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist [ICSDC] and Confusion Assessment Method-ICU [CAM-ICU]) were completed twice daily by bedside nurse or trained research assistant, respectively. Family delirium assessments (Family Confusion Assessment Method and Sour Seven) were completed once daily by family members. We pooled all delirium assessment tools in a single two-class latent model and pairwise (i.e., combined, clinical or family assessments) Bayesian analyses. RESULTS: Seventy-three patient-family dyads were included. Among clinical delirium assessments, the ICDSC had lower sensitivity (0.72; 95% Bayesian Credible [BC] interval 0.54–0.92) and higher specificity (0.90; 95%BC, 0.82–0.97) using Bayesian analyses compared to pooled latent class analysis and CAM-ICU had higher sensitivity (0.90; 95%BC, 0.70–1.00) and higher specificity (0.94; 95%BC, 0.80–1.00). Among family delirium assessments, the Family Confusion Assessment Method had higher sensitivity (0.83; 95%BC, 0.71–0.92) and higher specificity (0.93; 95%BC, 0.84–0.98) using Bayesian analyses compared to pooled latent class analysis and the Sour Seven had higher specificity (0.85; 95%BC, 0.67–0.99) but lower sensitivity (0.64; 95%BC 0.47–0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Results from delirium assessment tools are often combined owing to imperfect reference standards for delirium measurement. Pairwise Bayesian analyses that explicitly accounted for each tool’s (performed within same patient) prior sensitivity and specificity indicate that two combined clinical or two combined family delirium assessment tools have fair diagnostic accuracy. Public Library of Science 2022-04-18 /pmc/articles/PMC9015135/ /pubmed/35436316 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267110 Text en © 2022 Moss et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Moss, Stephana J.
Hee Lee, Chel
Doig, Christopher J.
Whalen-Browne, Liam
Stelfox, Henry T.
Fiest, Kirsten M.
Delirium diagnosis without a gold standard: Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of combined delirium assessment tools
title Delirium diagnosis without a gold standard: Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of combined delirium assessment tools
title_full Delirium diagnosis without a gold standard: Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of combined delirium assessment tools
title_fullStr Delirium diagnosis without a gold standard: Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of combined delirium assessment tools
title_full_unstemmed Delirium diagnosis without a gold standard: Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of combined delirium assessment tools
title_short Delirium diagnosis without a gold standard: Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of combined delirium assessment tools
title_sort delirium diagnosis without a gold standard: evaluating diagnostic accuracy of combined delirium assessment tools
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9015135/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35436316
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267110
work_keys_str_mv AT mossstephanaj deliriumdiagnosiswithoutagoldstandardevaluatingdiagnosticaccuracyofcombineddeliriumassessmenttools
AT heeleechel deliriumdiagnosiswithoutagoldstandardevaluatingdiagnosticaccuracyofcombineddeliriumassessmenttools
AT doigchristopherj deliriumdiagnosiswithoutagoldstandardevaluatingdiagnosticaccuracyofcombineddeliriumassessmenttools
AT whalenbrowneliam deliriumdiagnosiswithoutagoldstandardevaluatingdiagnosticaccuracyofcombineddeliriumassessmenttools
AT stelfoxhenryt deliriumdiagnosiswithoutagoldstandardevaluatingdiagnosticaccuracyofcombineddeliriumassessmenttools
AT fiestkirstenm deliriumdiagnosiswithoutagoldstandardevaluatingdiagnosticaccuracyofcombineddeliriumassessmenttools