Suppr超能文献

修订版谵妄评定量表(DRS-R98)与纪念谵妄评估量表(MDAS)在伴有DSM-IV谵妄的姑息治疗队列中的比较。

A comparison of the revised Delirium Rating Scale (DRS-R98) and the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) in a palliative care cohort with DSM-IV delirium.

作者信息

O'Sullivan Roisin, Meagher David, Leonard Maeve, Watne Leiv Otto, Hall Roanna J, Maclullich Alasdair M J, Trzepacz Paula, Adamis Dimitrios

机构信息

Department of Adult Psychiatry,University Hospital Limerick,Limerick,Ireland.

Department of Geriatric Medicine,Oslo University Hospital,Oslo,Norway.

出版信息

Palliat Support Care. 2015 Aug;13(4):937-44. doi: 10.1017/S1478951514000613. Epub 2014 Jul 3.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Assessment of delirium is performed with a variety of instruments, making comparisons between studies difficult. A conversion rule between commonly used instruments would aid such comparisons. The present study aimed to compare the revised Delirium Rating Scale (DRS-R98) and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) in a palliative care population and derive conversion rules between the two scales.

METHOD

Both instruments were employed to assess 77 consecutive patients with DSM-IV delirium, and the measures were repeated at three-day intervals. Conversion rules were derived from the data at initial assessment and tested on subsequent data.

RESULTS

There was substantial overall agreement between the two scales [concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) = 0.70 (CI 95 = 0.60-0.78)] and between most common items (weighted κ ranging from 0.63 to 0.86). Although the two scales overlap considerably, there were some subtle differences with only modest agreement between the attention (weighted κ = 0.42) and thought process (weighted κ = 0.61) items. The conversion rule from total MDAS score to DRS-R98 severity scores demonstrated an almost perfect level of agreement (r = 0.86, CCC = 0.86; CI 95 = 0.79-0.91), similar to the conversion rule from DRS-R98 to MDAS.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Overall, the derived conversion rules demonstrated promising accuracy in this palliative care population, but further testing in other populations is certainly needed.

摘要

目的

谵妄的评估使用了多种工具,这使得不同研究之间难以进行比较。常用工具之间的转换规则将有助于此类比较。本研究旨在比较修订版谵妄评定量表(DRS-R98)和纪念性谵妄评估量表(MDAS)在姑息治疗人群中的情况,并得出这两个量表之间的转换规则。

方法

使用这两种工具对77例连续的符合《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版(DSM-IV)标准的谵妄患者进行评估,并每隔三天重复测量一次。转换规则从初始评估数据中得出,并在后续数据上进行测试。

结果

两个量表之间总体一致性较高[一致性相关系数(CCC)=0.70(95%置信区间=0.60-0.78)],大多数常见项目之间也是如此(加权κ值范围为0.63至0.86)。虽然两个量表有相当大的重叠,但仍存在一些细微差异,注意力(加权κ=0.42)和思维过程(加权κ=0.61)项目之间的一致性仅为中等。从MDAS总分到DRS-R98严重程度得分的转换规则显示出几乎完美的一致性水平(r=0.86,CCC=0.86;95%置信区间=0.79-0.91),与从DRS-R98到MDAS 的转换规则相似。

结果的意义

总体而言,得出的转换规则在该姑息治疗人群中显示出有前景的准确性,但肯定需要在其他人群中进一步测试。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验