Suppr超能文献

急诊科谵妄检测:病史、体格检查、实验室检查和筛查工具的诊断准确性荟萃分析。

Delirium detection in the emergency department: A diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis of history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and screening instruments.

机构信息

Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.

出版信息

Acad Emerg Med. 2024 Oct;31(10):1014-1036. doi: 10.1111/acem.14935. Epub 2024 May 16.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Geriatric emergency department (ED) guidelines emphasize timely identification of delirium. This article updates previous diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews of history, physical examination, laboratory testing, and ED screening instruments for the diagnosis of delirium as well as test-treatment thresholds for ED delirium screening.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to quantify the diagnostic accuracy of approaches to identify delirium. Studies were included if they described adults aged 60 or older evaluated in the ED setting with an index test for delirium compared with an acceptable criterion standard for delirium. Data were extracted and studies were reviewed for risk of bias. When appropriate, we conducted a meta-analysis and estimated delirium screening thresholds.

RESULTS

Full-text review was performed on 55 studies and 27 were included in the current analysis. No studies were identified exploring the accuracy of findings on history or laboratory analysis. While two studies reported clinicians accurately rule in delirium, clinician gestalt is inadequate to rule out delirium. We report meta-analysis on three studies that quantified the accuracy of the 4 A's Test (4AT) to rule in (pooled positive likelihood ratio [LR+] 7.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.7-20.7) and rule out (pooled negative likelihood ratio [LR-] 0.18, 95% CI 0.09-0.34) delirium. We also conducted meta-analysis of two studies that quantified the accuracy of the Abbreviated Mental Test-4 (AMT-4) and found that the pooled LR+ (4.3, 95% CI 2.4-7.8) was lower than that observed for the 4AT, but the pooled LR- (0.22, 95% CI 0.05-1) was similar. Based on one study the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) is the superior instrument to rule in delirium. The calculated test threshold is 2% and the treatment threshold is 11%.

CONCLUSIONS

The quantitative accuracy of history and physical examination to identify ED delirium is virtually unexplored. The 4AT has the largest quantity of ED-based research. Other screening instruments may more accurately rule in or rule out delirium. If the goal is to rule in delirium then the CAM-ICU or brief CAM or modified CAM for the ED are superior instruments, although the accuracy of these screening tools are based on single-center studies. To rule out delirium, the Delirium Triage Screen is superior based on one single-center study.

摘要

简介

老年急诊科(ED)指南强调及时识别谵妄。本文更新了之前关于病史、体格检查、实验室检查和 ED 筛查工具诊断谵妄的诊断准确性以及 ED 谵妄筛查的检测-治疗阈值的系统评价。

方法

我们进行了一项系统评价,以量化识别谵妄的方法的诊断准确性。如果研究描述了在急诊科环境中评估的年龄在 60 岁或以上的成年人,且将其与可接受的谵妄标准进行比较,则将其纳入本研究。提取数据并对研究进行偏倚评估。在适当的情况下,我们进行了荟萃分析并估计了谵妄筛查阈值。

结果

对 55 篇研究进行了全文审查,其中 27 篇研究纳入了当前分析。没有研究探索历史或实验室分析结果的准确性。虽然有两项研究报告称临床医生准确地诊断出谵妄,但仅凭临床医生的直觉不足以排除谵妄。我们报告了三项研究的荟萃分析,这些研究量化了 4A 测试(4AT)对诊断(汇总阳性似然比[LR+]7.5,95%置信区间[CI]2.7-20.7)和排除(汇总阴性似然比[LR-]0.18,95%CI 0.09-0.34)的准确性。我们还对两项研究进行了荟萃分析,这些研究量化了简易精神状态检查-4(AMT-4)的准确性,发现汇总 LR+(4.3,95%CI 2.4-7.8)低于 4AT,而汇总 LR-(0.22,95%CI 0.05-1)相似。基于一项研究,重症监护病房意识模糊评估法(CAM-ICU)是一种用于诊断谵妄的优越工具。计算出的检测阈值为 2%,治疗阈值为 11%。

结论

历史和体检在识别急诊科谵妄方面的定量准确性几乎未被探索。4AT 具有最大数量的基于急诊科的研究。其他筛查工具可能更准确地判断或排除谵妄。如果目标是诊断谵妄,那么 CAM-ICU 或简短的 CAM 或改良的 CAM 对于急诊科是优越的工具,尽管这些筛查工具的准确性基于单中心研究。基于一项单中心研究,谵妄分诊筛查对排除谵妄具有优势。

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