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