Neufeld Karin J, Nelliot Archana, Inouye Sharon K, Ely E Wesley, Bienvenu O Joseph, Lee Hochang Benjamin, Needham Dale M
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2014 Dec;22(12):1513-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jagp.2014.03.003. Epub 2014 Mar 15.
To describe methodology used to diagnose delirium in research studies evaluating delirium detection tools.
The authors used a survey to address reference rater methodology for delirium diagnosis, including rater characteristics, sources of patient information, and diagnostic process, completed via web or telephone interview according to respondent preference. Participants were authors of 39 studies included in three recent systematic reviews of delirium detection instruments in hospitalized patients.
Authors from 85% (N = 33) of the 39 eligible studies responded to the survey. The median number of raters per study was 2.5 (interquartile range: 2-3); 79% were physicians. The raters' median duration of clinical experience with delirium diagnosis was 7 years (interquartile range: 4-10), with 5% having no prior clinical experience. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated in 70% of studies. Cognitive tests and delirium detection tools were used in the delirium reference rating process in 61% (N = 21) and 45% (N = 15) of studies, respectively, with 33% (N = 11) using both and 27% (N = 9) using neither. When patients were too drowsy or declined to participate in delirium evaluation, 70% of studies (N = 23) used all available information for delirium diagnosis, whereas 15% excluded such patients.
Significant variability exists in reference standard methods for delirium diagnosis in published research. Increasing standardization by documenting inter-rater reliability, using standardized cognitive and delirium detection tools, incorporating diagnostic expert consensus panels, and using all available information in patients declining or unable to participate with formal testing may help advance delirium research by increasing consistency of case detection and improving generalizability of research results.
描述在评估谵妄检测工具的研究中用于诊断谵妄的方法。
作者采用一项调查来探讨谵妄诊断的参考评估方法,包括评估者特征、患者信息来源和诊断过程,根据受访者偏好通过网络或电话访谈完成。参与者是最近三项关于住院患者谵妄检测工具的系统评价中纳入的39项研究的作者。
39项符合条件的研究中有85%(N = 33)的作者回复了调查。每项研究评估者的中位数为2.5(四分位间距:2 - 3);79%为医生。评估者诊断谵妄的临床经验中位数为7年(四分位间距:4 - 10),5%没有 prior 临床经验。70%的研究评估了评估者间信度。分别有61%(N = 21)和45%(N = 15)的研究在谵妄参考评级过程中使用了认知测试和谵妄检测工具,33%(N = 11)同时使用了两者,27%(N = 9)两者均未使用。当患者过于嗜睡或拒绝参与谵妄评估时,70%的研究(N = 23)使用所有可用信息进行谵妄诊断,而15%排除此类患者。
已发表研究中谵妄诊断的参考标准方法存在显著差异。通过记录评估者间信度、使用标准化的认知和谵妄检测工具、纳入诊断专家共识小组以及在拒绝或无法参与正式测试的患者中使用所有可用信息来提高标准化,可能有助于通过提高病例检测的一致性和改善研究结果的可推广性来推进谵妄研究。