O'Sullivan Roisin, Meagher David, Leonard Maeve, Watne Leiv Otto, Hall Roanna J, Maclullich Alasdair M J, Trzepacz Paula, Adamis Dimitrios
Department of Adult Psychiatry,University Hospital Limerick,Limerick,Ireland.
Department of Geriatric Medicine,Oslo University Hospital,Oslo,Norway.
Palliat Support Care. 2015 Aug;13(4):937-44. doi: 10.1017/S1478951514000613. Epub 2014 Jul 3.
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.
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.
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.
Overall, the derived conversion rules demonstrated promising accuracy in this palliative care population, but further testing in other populations is certainly needed.
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。
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。
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。
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。