Dataset Information

Delirium detection in older acute medical inpatients: a multicentre prospective comparative diagnostic test accuracy study of the 4AT and the confusion assessment method.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Delirium affects > 15% of hospitalised patients but is grossly underdetected, contributing to poor care. The 4 'A's Test (4AT, www.the4AT.com ) is a short delirium assessment tool designed for routine use without special training. The primary objective was to assess the accuracy of the 4AT for delirium detection. The secondary objective was to compare the 4AT with another commonly used delirium assessment tool, the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM).

Methods

This was a prospective diagnostic test accuracy study set in emergency departments or acute medical wards involving acute medical patients aged ≥ 70. All those without acutely life-threatening illness or coma were eligible. Patients underwent (1) reference standard delirium assessment based on DSM-IV criteria and (2) were randomised to either the index test (4AT, scores 0-12; prespecified score of > 3 considered positive) or the comparator (CAM; scored positive or negative), in a random order, using computer-generated pseudo-random numbers, stratified by study site, with block allocation. Reference standard and 4AT or CAM assessments were performed by pairs of independent raters blinded to the results of the other assessment.

Results

Eight hundred forty-three individuals were randomised: 21 withdrew, 3 lost contact, 32 indeterminate diagnosis, 2 missing outcome, and 785 were included in the analysis. Mean age was 81.4 (SD 6.4) years. 12.1% (95/785) had delirium by reference standard assessment, 14.3% (56/392) by 4AT, and 4.7% (18/384) by CAM. The 4AT had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90 (95% CI 0.84-0.96). The 4AT had a sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 61-87%) and a specificity of 94% (95% CI 92-97%). The CAM had a sensitivity of 40% (95% CI 26-57%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI 98-100%).

Conclusions

The 4AT is a short, pragmatic tool which can help improving detection rates of delirium in routine clinical care.

Trial registration

International standard randomised controlled trial number (ISRCTN) 53388093 . Date applied 30/05/2014; date assigned 02/06/2014.

SUBMITTER: Shenkin SD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6651960 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDelirium is a common and serious acute neuropsychiatric syndrome which is often missed in routine clinical care. Inattention is the core cognitive feature. Diagnostic test accuracy (including cut-points) of a smartphone Delirium App (DelApp) for assessing attention deficits was assessed in older hospital inpatients.MethodsThis was a case-control study of hospitalised patients aged ≥65 years with delirium (with or without pre-existing cognitive impairment), who were compared to patients with dementia without delirium, and patients without cognitive impairment. Reference standard delirium assessment, which included a neuropsychological test battery, was based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 criteria. A separate blinded assessor administered the DelApp arousal assessment (score 0-4) and attention task (0-6) yielding an overall score of 0 to 10 (lower scores indicate poorer performance). Analyses included receiver operating characteristic curves and sensitivity and specificity. Optimal cut-points for delirium detection were determined using Youden's index.ResultsA total of 187 patients were recruited, mean age 83.8 (range 67-98) years, 152 (81%) women; n = 61 with delirium; n = 61 with dementia without delirium; and n = 65 without cognitive impairment. Patients with delirium performed poorly on the DelApp (median score = 4/10; inter-quartile range 3.0, 5.5) compared to patients with dementia (9.0; 5.5, 10.0) and those without cognitive impairment (10.0; 10.0, 10.0). Area under the curve for detecting delirium was 0.89 (95% Confidence Interval 0.84, 0.94). At an optimal cut-point of ≤8, sensitivity was 91.7% (84.7%, 98.7%) and specificity 74.2% (66.5%, 81.9%) for discriminating delirium from the other groups. Specificity was 68.3% (56.6%, 80.1%) for discriminating delirium from dementia (cut-point ≤6).ConclusionPatients with delirium (with or without pre-existing cognitive impairment) perform poorly on the DelApp compared to patients with dementia and those without cognitive impairment. A cut-point of ≤8/10 is suggested as having optimal sensitivity and specificity. The DelApp is a promising tool for assessment of attention deficits associated with delirium in older hospitalised adults, many of whom have prior cognitive impairment, and should be further validated in representative patient cohorts.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Delirium is a common and serious clinical syndrome which is often missed in routine clinical care. The core cognitive feature is inattention. We developed a novel bedside neuropsychological test for assessing inattention in delirium implemented on a smartphone platform (DelApp). We aim to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the DelApp in a representative cohort of older hospitalised patients. METHODS:This is a prospective study of older non-scheduled hospitalised patients (target n?=?500, age ? 65), recruited from elderly care and acute orthopaedic wards. Exclusion criteria are: non-English speakers; severe vision or hearing impairment; photosensitive epilepsy. A structured reference standard delirium assessment based on DSM-5 criteria will be used, which includes a cognitive test battery administered by a trained assessor (Orientation-Memory-Concentration Test, Abbreviated Mental Test-10, Delirium Rating Severity Scale-Revised-98, digit span, months and days backwards, Vigilance A' test) and assessment of arousal (Observational Scale of Level of Arousal, Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale). Prior change in cognition will be documented using the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly. Patients will be categorized as delirium (with/without dementia), possible delirium, dementia, no cognitive impairment, or undetermined. A separate assessor (blinded to diagnosis and assessments) will administer the DelApp index test within 3 h of the reference standard assessment. The DelApp comprises assessment of arousal (score 0-4) and sustained attention (score 0-6), yielding a total score between 0 and 10 (higher score?=?better performance). Outcomes (length of stay, mortality and discharge location) will be collected at 12 weeks. We will evaluate a priori cutpoints derived from a previous case-control study. Measures of the accuracy of DelApp will include sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under the ROC curve. We plan repeat assessments on up to 4 occasions in a purposive subsample of 30 patients (15 delirium, 15 no delirium) to examine changes over time. DISCUSSION:This study evaluates the diagnostic test accuracy of a novel smartphone test for delirium in a representative cohort of older hospitalised patients, including those with dementia. DelApp has the potential to be a convenient, objective method of improving delirium assessment for older people in acute care. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinical trials.gov, NCT02590796 . Registered on 29 Oct 2015. Protocol version 5, dated 25 July 2016.

Project description:ImportanceSystematic reviews of medical imaging diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies are affected by between-study heterogeneity due to a range of factors. Failure to appropriately assess the extent and causes of heterogeneity compromises the interpretability of systematic review findings.ObjectiveTo assess how heterogeneity has been examined in medical imaging DTA studies.Evidence reviewThe PubMed database was searched for systematic reviews of medical imaging DTA studies that performed a meta-analysis. The search was limited to the 40 journals with highest impact factor in the radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging category in the InCites Journal Citation Reports of 2021 to reach a sample size of 200 to 300 included studies. Descriptive analysis was performed to characterize the imaging modality, target condition, type of meta-analysis model used, strategies for evaluating heterogeneity, and sources of heterogeneity identified. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess whether any factors were associated with at least 1 source of heterogeneity being identified in the included meta-analyses. Methodological quality evaluation was not performed. Data analysis occurred from October to December 2022.FindingsA total of 242 meta-analyses involving a median (range) of 987 (119-441 510) patients across a diverse range of disease categories and imaging modalities were included. The extent of heterogeneity was adequately described (ie, whether it was absent, low, moderate, or high) in 220 studies (91%) and was most commonly assessed using the I2 statistic (185 studies [76%]) and forest plots (181 studies [75%]). Heterogeneity was rated as moderate to high in 191 studies (79%). Of all included meta-analyses, 122 (50%) performed subgroup analysis and 87 (36%) performed meta-regression. Of the 242 studies assessed, 189 (78%) included 10 or more primary studies. Of these 189 studies, 60 (32%) did not perform meta-regression or subgroup analysis. Reasons for being unable to investigate sources of heterogeneity included inadequate reporting of primary study characteristics and a low number of included primary studies. Use of meta-regression was associated with identification of at least 1 source of variability (odds ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.11-3.23; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review of assessment of heterogeneity in medical imaging DTA meta-analyses, most meta-analyses were impacted by a moderate to high level of heterogeneity, presenting interpretive challenges. These findings suggest that, despite the development and availability of more rigorous statistical models, heterogeneity appeared to be incomplete, inconsistently evaluated, or methodologically questionable in many cases, which lessened the interpretability of the analyses performed; comprehensive heterogeneity assessment should be addressed at the author level by improving personal familiarity with appropriate statistical methodology for assessing heterogeneity and involving biostatisticians and epidemiologists in study design, as well as at the editorial level, by mandating adherence to methodologic standards in primary DTA studies and DTA meta-analyses.