Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA.
Departments of Psychiatry and Human Behavior and Neurology, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021 Feb;69(2):547-555. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16879. Epub 2020 Nov 2.
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Delirium manifests clinically in varying ways across settings. More than 40 instruments currently exist for characterizing the different manifestations of delirium. We evaluated all delirium identification instruments according to their psychometric properties and frequency of citation in published research.
We conducted the systematic review by searching Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science from January 1, 1974, to January 31, 2020, with the keywords "delirium" and "instruments," along with their known synonyms. We selected only systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or narrative literature reviews including multiple delirium identification instruments.
Two reviewers assessed the eligibility of articles and extracted data on all potential delirium identification instruments. Using the original publication on each instrument, the psychometric properties were examined using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) framework.
Of 2,542 articles identified, 75 met eligibility criteria, yielding 30 different delirium identification instruments. A count of citations was determined using Scopus for the original publication for each instrument. Each instrument underwent methodological quality review of psychometric properties using COSMIN definitions. An expert panel categorized key domains for delirium identification based on criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-III through DSM-5. Four instruments were notable for having at least two of three of the following: citation count of 200 or more, strong validation methodology in their original publication, and fulfillment of DSM-5 criteria. These were, alphabetically, Confusion Assessment Method, Delirium Observation Screening Scale, Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98, and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale.
Four commonly used and well-validated instruments can be recommended for clinical and research use. An important area for future investigation is to harmonize these measures to compare and combine studies on delirium.
背景/目的:谵妄在不同环境下表现出不同的临床症状。目前已有 40 多种工具可用于描述谵妄的不同表现。我们根据心理测量学特性和在已发表研究中的引用频率评估了所有谵妄识别工具。
我们通过搜索 Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)、Cochrane Library、Excerpta Medica Database (Embase)、PsycINFO、PubMed 和 Web of Science,从 1974 年 1 月 1 日至 2020 年 1 月 31 日,使用“delirium”和“instruments”及其已知同义词作为关键词,进行了系统评价。我们仅选择了包括多种谵妄识别工具的系统评价、荟萃分析或叙述性文献综述。
两名评审员评估了文章的资格,并提取了所有潜在谵妄识别工具的数据。使用每个工具的原始出版物,根据共识基础的健康测量仪器选择标准(COSMIN)框架检查心理测量学特性。
在 2542 篇文章中,有 75 篇符合入选标准,共涉及 30 种不同的谵妄识别工具。通过 Scopus 确定了每种工具原始出版物的引用次数。根据 COSMIN 定义,对每种工具的心理测量学特性进行了方法学质量评价。一个专家小组根据《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》(DSM)第三版至第五版的标准,对谵妄识别的关键领域进行了分类。有四种工具因以下三个方面中的至少两个方面而引人注目:引用次数超过 200 次、原始出版物中具有较强的验证方法学,以及符合 DSM-5 标准。它们分别是字母顺序的谵妄评估方法(Confusion Assessment Method)、谵妄观察筛选量表(Delirium Observation Screening Scale)、修订版 98 谵妄评定量表(Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98)和记忆谵妄评估量表(Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale)。
有四种常用且经过良好验证的工具可推荐用于临床和研究用途。未来的一个重要研究领域是协调这些措施,以比较和结合谵妄研究。