Liu Yadong, Li Zhenzhen, Li Ying, Ge Ning, Yue Jirong
Department of Geriatrics and National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital/West China School of Medicine, Sichuan University, Sichuan, China.
Health Management Center, General Practice Center, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Sichuan, China.
Front Psychol. 2023 May 12;14:1166392. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1166392. eCollection 2023.
Early identification of delirium, which often occurs in older patients, can effectively reduce adverse prognoses. One way to increase the detection rate of delirium is to use an effective ultrabrief instrument for higher-frequency screening. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ultrabrief screening tools for delirium.
The Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMBASE were searched from January 1, 1974, to November 31, 2022. We assessed the measurement properties of screening instruments using the consensus-based standards for selecting health measurement instruments (COSMIN) checklist and evaluated the risk bias of the included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. The diagnostic test accuracy of instruments for delirium was reported using sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR).
Of the 4,914 items identified, 26 met the eligibility criteria, resulting in 5 different delirium identification tools. The overall study quality assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool was moderate to good. Of the five screening tools, two instruments had sensitivity ≥80% and specificities ≥80%: 4AT and UB-2. The most comprehensive is the 4AT scale, which has a sensitivity of 0.80 [95% confidence interval (CI):0.68, 0.88] and a specificity of 0.89 (95%CI: 0.83, 0.93) and contains 4 items. UB-2 has a sensitivity of 0.88 (95%CI: 0.72, 0.96) and a specificity of 0.64 (95%CI: 0.56, 0.70).
UB-2 and MOTYB had excellent sensitivity for delirium screening at an early stage. In terms of sensitivity and intentionality, the 4AT is the best recommended scale.
谵妄常发生于老年患者,早期识别谵妄可有效降低不良预后。提高谵妄检出率的一种方法是使用有效的超简短工具进行高频筛查。本综述的目的是评估超简短谵妄筛查工具的诊断准确性。
检索1974年1月1日至2022年11月31日期间的Cochrane图书馆、PubMed和EMBASE。我们使用基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准(COSMIN)清单评估筛查工具的测量属性,并使用诊断准确性研究质量评估-2(QUADAS-2)工具评估纳入研究的风险偏倚。使用敏感性、特异性、阳性似然比(PLR)和阴性似然比(NLR)报告谵妄工具的诊断测试准确性。
在识别出的4914项中,26项符合纳入标准,产生了5种不同的谵妄识别工具。QUADAS-2工具评估的总体研究质量为中等至良好。在这五种筛查工具中,两种工具的敏感性≥80%且特异性≥80%:4AT和UB-2。最全面的是4AT量表,其敏感性为0.80[95%置信区间(CI):0.68,0.88],特异性为0.89(95%CI:0.83,0.93),包含4个项目。UB-2的敏感性为0.88(95%CI:0.72,0.96),特异性为0.64(95%CI:0.56,0.70)。
UB-2和MOTYB在谵妄早期筛查中具有出色的敏感性。在敏感性和实用性方面,4AT是最推荐的量表。