Suppr超能文献

CAM-ICU 和 ICDSC 对 ICU 谵妄检测的诊断准确性:双变量荟萃分析。

Diagnostic accuracy of the CAM-ICU and ICDSC in detecting intensive care unit delirium: A bivariate meta-analysis.

机构信息

School of Nursing, College of Nursing, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan; School of Nursing, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Northfields Ave, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia.

Department of Cardiology, Taipei Medical University Shuang Ho Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan.

出版信息

Int J Nurs Stud. 2021 Jan;113:103782. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103782. Epub 2020 Oct 3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a critical and highly prevalent problem among critically ill patients. The Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) are the most recommended assessment tools for detecting intensive care unit (ICU) delirium.

OBJECTIVES

To synthesize the current evidence and compared the diagnostic accuracy of the two tools in the detection of delirium in adults in ICUs.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCE

A comprehensive search of the following electronic databases was performed using PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses A&I. The date range searched was from database inception to April 26, 2019.

REVIEW METHODS

Two researchers independently identified articles, systematically abstracted data and evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of the CAM-ICU or the ICDSC against standard references. Bivariate diagnostic statistical analysis with a random-effects model was performed to summarize the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the two tools.

RESULTS

In total, 29 CAM-ICU and 12 ICDSC studies were identified. The pooled sensitivity was 0.84 and 0.83 and pooled specificity was 0.95 and 0.87 for the CAM-ICU and the ICDSC, respectively. The CAM-ICU had higher summary specificity than the ICDSC did (p = 0.04). The percentage of hypoactive delirium, ICU type, use of mechanical ventilation, number of participants, and female percentage moderated the accuracy of the tools. Most of the domains of patient selection, index test, reference standards, and flow and timing were rated as having a low or unclear risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Although both the CAM-ICU and the ICDSC are accurate assessment tools for screening delirium in critically ill patients, the CAM-ICU is superior in ruling out patients without ICU delirium and detecting delirium in patients in the medical ICU and those receiving mechanical ventilation. Further investigations are warranted to validate our findings. The study protocol is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020133544).

摘要

背景

谵妄是危重症患者中一个严重且普遍存在的问题。《重症监护谵妄评估方法》(CAM-ICU)和《重症监护谵妄筛查检查表》(ICDSC)是检测重症监护病房(ICU)谵妄最推荐的评估工具。

目的

综合当前证据并比较这两种工具在检测 ICU 成人谵妄方面的诊断准确性。

设计

系统评价和荟萃分析。

数据来源

使用 PubMed、Embase、CINAHL 和 ProQuest Dissertations and Theses A&I 全面检索以下电子数据库。检索日期范围为数据库建立至 2019 年 4 月 26 日。

综述方法

两名研究人员独立识别文章,系统地提取数据,并评估 CAM-ICU 或 ICDSC 对标准参考的敏感性和特异性。使用双变量诊断统计分析和随机效应模型汇总两种工具的合并敏感性和特异性。

结果

共纳入 29 项 CAM-ICU 研究和 12 项 ICDSC 研究。CAM-ICU 的合并敏感性为 0.84,特异性为 0.95;ICDSC 的合并敏感性为 0.83,特异性为 0.87。CAM-ICU 的汇总特异性高于 ICDSC(p=0.04)。昏睡型谵妄比例、ICU 类型、机械通气使用、参与者数量和女性比例均影响工具的准确性。患者选择、检测指标、参考标准、流程和时间的大部分领域被评为低风险或不确定风险。

结论

尽管 CAM-ICU 和 ICDSC 都是用于筛选危重症患者谵妄的准确评估工具,但 CAM-ICU 在排除无 ICU 谵妄的患者和检测内科 ICU 患者和接受机械通气的患者的谵妄方面更具优势。需要进一步的研究来验证我们的发现。研究方案在 PROSPERO(CRD42020133544)注册。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验