Grassi L, Caraceni A, Beltrami E, Borreani C, Zamorani M, Maltoni M, Monti M, Luzzani M, Mercadante S, De Conno F
Servizio di Psichiatria di Consultazione e Psiconcologia, Clinica Psichiatrica, Università di Ferrara, Ferrera, Italy.
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2001 Jan;21(1):59-68. doi: 10.1016/s0885-3924(00)00241-4.
To validate the Italian versions of the Delirium Rating Scale (DRS) and the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS), 105 cancer patients consecutively referred for neurological or psychiatric consultation for mental status change were evaluated using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), the DRS, the MDAS, and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). According to the CAM criteria and clinical examination, 66 patients were delirious, and 39 received diagnoses other than delirium. The DRS and the MDAS scores significantly distinguished delirious from non-delirious patients. The MDAS and the DRS were mutually correlated. When using the proposed cut-off scores for the two scales, the MDAS had higher specificity (94%) but lower sensitivity (68%) than the DRS (sensitivity = 95%, specificity = 61% for DRS cut-off 10; sensitivity = 80%, specificity = 76%, DRS cut-off 12). The MMSE showed high sensitivity (96%) and very low specificity (38%). Exploratory factor analysis of the DRS and the MDAS suggested a three-factor and two-factor structure, respectively. Both instruments in their Italian version proved to be useful for the assessment of delirium among cancer patients. Further research is needed to examine the use of the DRS and the MDAS in other clinical contexts.
为验证谵妄评定量表(DRS)和纪念性谵妄评估量表(MDAS)的意大利语版本,我们使用混乱评估方法(CAM)、DRS、MDAS和简易精神状态检查表(MMSE),对105名因精神状态改变而连续接受神经科或精神科会诊的癌症患者进行了评估。根据CAM标准和临床检查,66名患者存在谵妄,39名患者被诊断为非谵妄。DRS和MDAS评分能显著区分谵妄患者和非谵妄患者。MDAS和DRS相互关联。当使用为这两个量表提议的临界值时,MDAS的特异性较高(94%),但敏感性较低(68%),而DRS的敏感性为95%,特异性为61%(DRS临界值为10时);敏感性为80%,特异性为76%(DRS临界值为12时)。MMSE显示出高敏感性(96%)和极低特异性(38%)。对DRS和MDAS的探索性因素分析分别提示了一个三因素结构和一个两因素结构。事实证明,这两种工具的意大利语版本均有助于评估癌症患者中的谵妄情况。还需要进一步研究以检验DRS和MDAS在其他临床环境中的应用。