Noguera Antonio, Carvajal Ana, Alonso-Babarro Alberto, Chisholm Gary, Bruera Eduardo, Centeno Carlos
Hospital Centro de Cuidados Laguna, Madrid, Spain; Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Equipo de Soporte Hospitalario y Medicina Paliativa, Clínica Universitaria, Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2014 Jan;47(1):189-97. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.02.020. Epub 2013 Jun 21.
The Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) is a reliable and validated instrument with which to assess delirium. However, MDAS responsiveness has only been investigated in an indirect way. Also, neurobehavioral and global cognitive factors seem to be the MDAS main factor loads.
The primary objective of this study was to evaluate MDAS responsiveness and analyze individual factors on this scale. The secondary objective was to confirm concurrent validity and reliability of the Spanish version of the MDAS.
The translation-back translation method was used to obtain the Spanish version of the MDAS. Delirium diagnosis was determined by the clinical Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision criteria and with the Confusion Assessment Method. Responsiveness and factor loadings were determined with the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98, the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the MDAS at baseline (0 hours) and at 72 hours.
Variation in the scores of the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 shows a correlation of r = 0.93, with variation in MDAS scores at P < 0.001. Variation in MMSE scores shows a correlation of r = -0.84, with variation in MDAS scores at P = 0.015. Factor I, neurobehavioral (reduced awareness, reduced attention, perceptual disturbance, delusions, altered psychomotor activity, and sleep-wake cycle disturbance), correlated moderately with the MMSE at -0.56. Factor II, global cognitive (disorientation, short-term memory impairment, impaired digit span, and disorganized thinking), correlated strongly with the MMSE at -0.81. Factor II was significantly more reliable than Factor I, rho = 0.7, P = 0.01.
The high responsiveness confirms the value of the MDAS for ongoing delirium assessment. Two differentiated factor loadings point to a potential future need for MDAS subscales.
纪念谵妄评估量表(MDAS)是一种用于评估谵妄的可靠且经过验证的工具。然而,MDAS的反应性仅以间接方式进行了研究。此外,神经行为和整体认知因素似乎是MDAS的主要因素负荷。
本研究的主要目的是评估MDAS的反应性并分析该量表上的个体因素。次要目的是确认MDAS西班牙语版的同时效度和信度。
采用回译法获得MDAS西班牙语版。谵妄诊断根据《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》第四版修订版标准以及混乱评估方法确定。在基线(0小时)和72小时时,使用谵妄评定量表修订版98、简易精神状态检查表(MMSE)和MDAS确定反应性和因素负荷。
谵妄评定量表修订版98得分的变化与MDAS得分的变化呈r = 0.93的相关性,P < 0.001。MMSE得分的变化与MDAS得分的变化呈r = -0.84的相关性,P = 0.015。因素I,神经行为(意识减退、注意力减退、感知障碍、妄想、精神运动活动改变和睡眠-觉醒周期紊乱)与MMSE的相关性为中等,为-0.56。因素II,整体认知(定向障碍、短期记忆损害、数字广度受损和思维紊乱)与MMSE的相关性很强,为-0.81。因素II比因素I显著更可靠,rho = 0.7,P = 0.01。
高反应性证实了MDAS在持续谵妄评估中的价值。两个不同的因素负荷表明未来可能需要MDAS子量表。