康奈尔儿童谵妄量表评估在机械通气儿童中的表现。

Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0041-1728784
Neha Gupta, Saurabh Talathi, Allison Woolley, Stephanie Wilson, Mildred Franklin, Johanna Robbins, Candice Colston, Leslie Hayes
{"title":"康奈尔儿童谵妄量表评估在机械通气儿童中的表现。","authors":"Neha Gupta,&nbsp;Saurabh Talathi,&nbsp;Allison Woolley,&nbsp;Stephanie Wilson,&nbsp;Mildred Franklin,&nbsp;Johanna Robbins,&nbsp;Candice Colston,&nbsp;Leslie Hayes","doi":"10.1055/s-0041-1728784","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Accuracy of delirium diagnosis in mechanically ventilated children is often limited by their varying developmental abilities. The purpose of this study was to examine the performance of the Cornell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium (CAPD) scale in these patients. This is a single-center, prospective, observational study of patients requiring sedation and mechanical ventilation for 2 days or more. CAPD scale was implemented in our unit for delirium screening. Each CAPD assessment was accompanied by a physician assessment using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V) criteria. Sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the best cut-off score in our target population. We also evaluated ways to improve the accuracy of this scale in patients with and without developmental delay. A total of 837 paired assessments were performed. Prevalence of delirium was 19%. Overall, CAPD score ≥ 9 had sensitivity of 81.8% and specificity of 44.8%. Among typically developed patients, the sensitivity and specificity were 76.7 and 65.4%, respectively, whereas specificity was only 16.5% for developmentally delayed patients. The best cut-off value for CAPD was 9 for typically developed children and 17 for those with developmental delay (sensitivity 74.4%, specificity 63.2%). Some CAPD questions do not apply to patients with sensory and neurocognitive deficits; upon excluding those questions, the best cut-off values were 5 for typically developed and 6 for developmentally delayed children. In mechanically ventilated patients with developmental delay, CAPD ≥ 9 led to a high false-positive rate. This emphasizes the need for either a different cut-off score or development of a delirium scale specific to this patient population.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9894695/pdf/10-1055-s-0041-1728784.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance of Cornell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium Scale in Mechanically Ventilated Children.\",\"authors\":\"Neha Gupta,&nbsp;Saurabh Talathi,&nbsp;Allison Woolley,&nbsp;Stephanie Wilson,&nbsp;Mildred Franklin,&nbsp;Johanna Robbins,&nbsp;Candice Colston,&nbsp;Leslie Hayes\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0041-1728784\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Accuracy of delirium diagnosis in mechanically ventilated children is often limited by their varying developmental abilities. The purpose of this study was to examine the performance of the Cornell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium (CAPD) scale in these patients. This is a single-center, prospective, observational study of patients requiring sedation and mechanical ventilation for 2 days or more. CAPD scale was implemented in our unit for delirium screening. Each CAPD assessment was accompanied by a physician assessment using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V) criteria. Sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the best cut-off score in our target population. We also evaluated ways to improve the accuracy of this scale in patients with and without developmental delay. A total of 837 paired assessments were performed. Prevalence of delirium was 19%. Overall, CAPD score ≥ 9 had sensitivity of 81.8% and specificity of 44.8%. Among typically developed patients, the sensitivity and specificity were 76.7 and 65.4%, respectively, whereas specificity was only 16.5% for developmentally delayed patients. The best cut-off value for CAPD was 9 for typically developed children and 17 for those with developmental delay (sensitivity 74.4%, specificity 63.2%). Some CAPD questions do not apply to patients with sensory and neurocognitive deficits; upon excluding those questions, the best cut-off values were 5 for typically developed and 6 for developmentally delayed children. In mechanically ventilated patients with developmental delay, CAPD ≥ 9 led to a high false-positive rate. This emphasizes the need for either a different cut-off score or development of a delirium scale specific to this patient population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9894695/pdf/10-1055-s-0041-1728784.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1728784\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1728784","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

机械通气儿童谵妄诊断的准确性往往受到其不同发育能力的限制。本研究的目的是检查康奈尔儿童谵妄评估(CAPD)量表在这些患者中的表现。这是一项单中心、前瞻性、观察性研究,研究对象是需要镇静和机械通气2天或更长时间的患者。本单位采用CAPD量表进行谵妄筛查。每个CAPD评估都伴随着医生评估,使用精神障碍诊断与统计手册第五版(DSM-V)标准。进行敏感性分析以确定目标人群的最佳临界值。我们还评估了在有或没有发育迟缓的患者中提高该量表准确性的方法。共进行了837次成对评估。谵妄的患病率为19%。总体而言,CAPD评分≥9的敏感性为81.8%,特异性为44.8%。在典型发育患者中,敏感性和特异性分别为76.7%和65.4%,而在发育迟缓患者中,特异性仅为16.5%。典型发育儿童CAPD的最佳临界值为9,发育迟缓儿童CAPD的最佳临界值为17(敏感性74.4%,特异性63.2%)。一些CAPD问题不适用于感觉和神经认知缺陷的患者;排除这些问题后,典型发育儿童的最佳临界值为5,发育迟缓儿童的最佳临界值为6。在发育迟缓的机械通气患者中,CAPD≥9导致假阳性率较高。这就强调了需要一个不同的分界点或针对这一患者群体制定谵妄量表。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
Performance of Cornell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium Scale in Mechanically Ventilated Children.

Accuracy of delirium diagnosis in mechanically ventilated children is often limited by their varying developmental abilities. The purpose of this study was to examine the performance of the Cornell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium (CAPD) scale in these patients. This is a single-center, prospective, observational study of patients requiring sedation and mechanical ventilation for 2 days or more. CAPD scale was implemented in our unit for delirium screening. Each CAPD assessment was accompanied by a physician assessment using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V) criteria. Sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the best cut-off score in our target population. We also evaluated ways to improve the accuracy of this scale in patients with and without developmental delay. A total of 837 paired assessments were performed. Prevalence of delirium was 19%. Overall, CAPD score ≥ 9 had sensitivity of 81.8% and specificity of 44.8%. Among typically developed patients, the sensitivity and specificity were 76.7 and 65.4%, respectively, whereas specificity was only 16.5% for developmentally delayed patients. The best cut-off value for CAPD was 9 for typically developed children and 17 for those with developmental delay (sensitivity 74.4%, specificity 63.2%). Some CAPD questions do not apply to patients with sensory and neurocognitive deficits; upon excluding those questions, the best cut-off values were 5 for typically developed and 6 for developmentally delayed children. In mechanically ventilated patients with developmental delay, CAPD ≥ 9 led to a high false-positive rate. This emphasizes the need for either a different cut-off score or development of a delirium scale specific to this patient population.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
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