BACKGROUND: Delirium is the most common acute neuropsychiatric disorder in hospitalized elderly. The Dutch version of the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R-98) appears to be a reliable method to classify delirium. The aim of this study was to determine the validity and reliability of the DRS-R-98 and to study clinical subtypes of delirium using the DRS-R-98. METHODS: Patients received the Dutch version of the DRS-R-98, the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Confusion Assessment Method, and a clinical diagnosis of delirium according to DSM-IV criteria, and their relatives the Informant Questionnaire Cognitive Decline in the Elderly. RESULTS: The DRS-R-98 validation cohort (n=65) consisted of 23 patients with delirium, 22 patients with dementia, and 20 non-psychiatric comparison patients. For the delirium subtype study, a second cohort comprising 54 delirious patients was investigated. Median DRS-R-98 scores significantly distinguished delirium from dementia and no psychiatric disorder. Inter-rater reliability (intra-class correlation 0.97) and internal consistency (Crohnbach's alpha 0.94) were high. Positive scores of DRS-R-98 item 4 (affect liability) and item 7 (motor agitation) predicted the presence of non-hypoactive delirium, with a specificity of 89% and a sensitivity of 57%. CONCLUSION: The results show that the Dutch version of the DRS-R-98 is a valid and reliable measure of delirium severity and distinguishes patients with delirium from patients with dementia and comparison patients. Furthermore, the DRS-R-98 is able to exclude hypoactive delirium. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
BACKGROUND:Delirium is the most common acute neuropsychiatric disorder in hospitalized elderly. The Dutch version of the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R-98) appears to be a reliable method to classify delirium. The aim of this study was to determine the validity and reliability of the DRS-R-98 and to study clinical subtypes of delirium using the DRS-R-98. METHODS:Patients received the Dutch version of the DRS-R-98, the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Confusion Assessment Method, and a clinical diagnosis of delirium according to DSM-IV criteria, and their relatives the Informant Questionnaire Cognitive Decline in the Elderly. RESULTS: The DRS-R-98 validation cohort (n=65) consisted of 23 patients with delirium, 22 patients with dementia, and 20 non-psychiatric comparison patients. For the delirium subtype study, a second cohort comprising 54 delirious patients was investigated. Median DRS-R-98 scores significantly distinguished delirium from dementia and no psychiatric disorder. Inter-rater reliability (intra-class correlation 0.97) and internal consistency (Crohnbach's alpha 0.94) were high. Positive scores of DRS-R-98 item 4 (affect liability) and item 7 (motor agitation) predicted the presence of non-hypoactive delirium, with a specificity of 89% and a sensitivity of 57%. CONCLUSION: The results show that the Dutch version of the DRS-R-98 is a valid and reliable measure of delirium severity and distinguishes patients with delirium from patients with dementia and comparison patients. Furthermore, the DRS-R-98 is able to exclude hypoactive delirium. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Authors: Anita Hargrave; Jesse Bastiaens; James A Bourgeois; John Neuhaus; S Andrew Josephson; Julia Chinn; Melissa Lee; Jacqueline Leung; Vanja Douglas Journal: Psychosomatics Date: 2017-07-24 Impact factor: 2.386
Authors: Annemarieke de Jonghe; Barbara C van Munster; J Carel Goslings; Peter Kloen; Carolien van Rees; Reinder Wolvius; Romuald van Velde; Marcel Levi; Rob J de Haan; Sophia E de Rooij Journal: CMAJ Date: 2014-09-02 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Karin J Neufeld; Archana Nelliot; Sharon K Inouye; E Wesley Ely; O Joseph Bienvenu; Hochang Benjamin Lee; Dale M Needham Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2014-03-15 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Nick C Leegwater; Peter A Nolte; Niels de Korte; Martin J Heetveld; Kees J Kalisvaart; Casper P Schönhuth; Bas Pijnenburg; Bart J Burger; Kees-Jan Ponsen; Frank W Bloemers; Andrea B Maier; Barend J van Royen Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Marieke J Henstra; Thomas C Feenstra; Rob M Kok; Harm-Pieter Spaans; Eric van Exel; Annemiek Dols; Mardien Oudega; Anton C M Vergouwen; Adriano van der Loo; Pierre M Bet; Stephan A Loer; Merijn Eikelenboom; Pascal Sienaert; Simon Lambrichts; Filip Bouckaert; Judith E Bosmans; Nathalie van der Velde; Aartjan T F Beekman; Max L Stek; Didi Rhebergen Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2022-07-15 Impact factor: 5.435
Authors: Barbara C van Munster; Catharina M Korse; Sophia E de Rooij; Johannes M Bonfrer; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Johanna C Korevaar Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2009-05-27 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Esteban Sepulveda; José G Franco; Paula T Trzepacz; Ana M Gaviria; David J Meagher; José Palma; Eva Viñuelas; Imma Grau; Elisabet Vilella; Joan de Pablo Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2016-05-26 Impact factor: 3.630