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

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Academic Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-16 DOI:10.1111/acem.14935
Christopher R Carpenter, Sangil Lee, Maura Kennedy, Glenn Arendts, Linda Schnitker, Debra Eagles, Simon Mooijaart, Susan Fowler, Michelle Doering, Michael A LaMantia, Jin H Han, Shan W Liu
{"title":"Delirium detection in the emergency department: A diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis of history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and screening instruments.","authors":"Christopher R Carpenter, Sangil Lee, Maura Kennedy, Glenn Arendts, Linda Schnitker, Debra Eagles, Simon Mooijaart, Susan Fowler, Michelle Doering, Michael A LaMantia, Jin H Han, Shan W Liu","doi":"10.1111/acem.14935","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":7105,"journal":{"name":"Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1014-1036"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.14935","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
急诊科谵妄检测:病史、体格检查、实验室检测和筛查工具的诊断准确性荟萃分析。
导言:老年急诊科(ED)指南强调及时识别谵妄。本文更新了以往对病史、体格检查、实验室检测和急诊科谵妄诊断筛查工具的诊断准确性系统综述,以及急诊科谵妄筛查的检测-治疗阈值:我们进行了一项系统综述,以量化识别谵妄方法的诊断准确性。如果研究描述了在急诊室环境中使用谵妄指数测试与可接受的谵妄标准比较来评估 60 岁或以上成人的情况,则纳入该研究。我们提取了数据,并对研究进行了偏倚风险审查。在适当的情况下,我们进行了荟萃分析,并估算了谵妄筛查阈值:我们对 55 项研究进行了全文审阅,其中 27 项纳入了本次分析。没有发现探讨病史或实验室分析结果准确性的研究。虽然有两项研究报告称临床医生能准确排除谵妄,但临床医生的态势并不足以排除谵妄。我们报告了三项研究的荟萃分析,这些研究量化了 4 A's Test (4AT) 判断谵妄的准确性(汇总阳性似然比 [LR+] 7.5,95% 置信区间 [CI] 2.7-20.7)和排除谵妄的准确性(汇总阴性似然比 [LR-] 0.18,95% 置信区间 [CI] 0.09-0.34)。我们还对两项研究进行了荟萃分析,这两项研究量化了简略智力测验-4(AMT-4)的准确性,发现汇总的 LR+(4.3,95% CI 2.4-7.8)低于 4AT 的准确性,但汇总的 LR-(0.22,95% CI 0.05-1)与 4AT 相似。根据一项研究,重症监护室意识模糊评估方法(CAM-ICU)是排除谵妄的最佳工具。计算得出的测试阈值为 2%,治疗阈值为 11%:结论:病史和体格检查在确定急诊室谵妄方面的定量准确性几乎尚未得到探讨。4AT 在基于急诊室的研究中数量最多。其他筛查工具可能会更准确地排除谵妄。如果目标是排除谵妄,那么CAM-ICU、简短CAM或针对急诊室的改良CAM都是较好的工具,尽管这些筛查工具的准确性都是基于单中心研究。若要排除谵妄,根据一项单中心研究,谵妄分流筛查更胜一筹。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Academic Emergency Medicine
Academic Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.80%
发文量
207
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) is the official monthly publication of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and publishes information relevant to the practice, educational advancements, and investigation of emergency medicine. It is the second-largest peer-reviewed scientific journal in the specialty of emergency medicine. The goal of AEM is to advance the science, education, and clinical practice of emergency medicine, to serve as a voice for the academic emergency medicine community, and to promote SAEM''s goals and objectives. Members and non-members worldwide depend on this journal for translational medicine relevant to emergency medicine, as well as for clinical news, case studies and more. Each issue contains information relevant to the research, educational advancements, and practice in emergency medicine. Subject matter is diverse, including preclinical studies, clinical topics, health policy, and educational methods. The research of SAEM members contributes significantly to the scientific content and development of the journal.
期刊最新文献
How do triage nurses use their Know-Who to make decisions? A pilot exploratory study. Consent to advanced imaging in antenatal pulmonary embolism diagnostics: Prevalence, outcomes of nonconsent and opportunities to mitigate delayed diagnosis risk. Video laryngoscopy versus fiberoptic bronchoscopy for awake tracheal intubation. Documentation of incidentally noted hepatic steatosis to emergency department patients: A retrospective study. Online public response to emergency department diagnostic error report: A qualitative study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1