BACKGROUND: Cognitive dysfunction, including dementia and delirium, is prevalent in geriatric emergency department (ED) patients, but often remains undetected. One barrier to reliable identification of acutely or chronically impaired cognitive function is the lack of an acceptable screening tool. While multiple brief screening instruments have been derived, ED validation trials have not previously demonstrated tools that are appropriately sensitive for clinical use. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to evaluate and compare the Ottawa 3DY (O3DY), Brief Alzheimer's Screen (BAS), Short Blessed Test (SBT), and caregiver-completed AD8 (cAD8) diagnostic test performance for cognitive dysfunction in geriatric ED patients using the Mini Mental Status Exam (MMSE) as the criterion standard. A secondary objective was to assess the diagnostic accuracy for the cAD8 (which is an informant-based instrument) when used in combination with the other performance-based screening tools. METHODS: In an observational cross-sectional cohort study at one urban academic university-affiliated medical center, trained research assistants (RAs) collected patients' responses on the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit, BAS, and SBT. When available, reliable caregivers completed the cAD8. The MMSE was then obtained. The O3DY was reconstructed from elements of the MMSE and the BAS. Consenting subjects were non-critically ill, English-speaking adults over age 65 years, who had not received potentially sedating medications prior to or during cognitive testing. Using an MMSE score of ≤23 as the criterion standard for cognitive dysfunction, the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) were computed. Venn diagrams were constructed to quantitatively compare the degree of overlap among positive test results between the performance-based instruments. RESULTS: The prevalence of cognitive dysfunction for the 163 patients enrolled with complete data collection was 37%, including 5.5% with delirium. Dementia was self-reported in 3%. Caregivers were available to complete the cAD8 for 56% of patients. The SBT, BAS, and O3DY each demonstrated 95% sensitivity, compared with 83% sensitivity for the cAD8. The SBT had a superior specificity of 65%. No combination of instruments with the cAD8 significantly improved diagnostic accuracy. The SBT provided the optimal overlap with the MMSE. CONCLUSIONS: The SBT, BAS, and O3DY are three brief performance-based screening instruments to identify geriatric patients with cognitive dysfunction more rapidly than the MMSE. Among these three instruments, the SBT provides the best diagnostic test characteristics and overlap with MMSE results. The addition of the cAD8 to the other instruments does not enhance diagnostic accuracy.
BACKGROUND:Cognitive dysfunction, including dementia and delirium, is prevalent in geriatric emergency department (ED) patients, but often remains undetected. One barrier to reliable identification of acutely or chronically impaired cognitive function is the lack of an acceptable screening tool. While multiple brief screening instruments have been derived, ED validation trials have not previously demonstrated tools that are appropriately sensitive for clinical use. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to evaluate and compare the Ottawa 3DY (O3DY), Brief Alzheimer's Screen (BAS), Short Blessed Test (SBT), and caregiver-completed AD8 (cAD8) diagnostic test performance for cognitive dysfunction in geriatric ED patients using the Mini Mental Status Exam (MMSE) as the criterion standard. A secondary objective was to assess the diagnostic accuracy for the cAD8 (which is an informant-based instrument) when used in combination with the other performance-based screening tools. METHODS: In an observational cross-sectional cohort study at one urban academic university-affiliated medical center, trained research assistants (RAs) collected patients' responses on the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit, BAS, and SBT. When available, reliable caregivers completed the cAD8. The MMSE was then obtained. The O3DY was reconstructed from elements of the MMSE and the BAS. Consenting subjects were non-critically ill, English-speaking adults over age 65 years, who had not received potentially sedating medications prior to or during cognitive testing. Using an MMSE score of ≤23 as the criterion standard for cognitive dysfunction, the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) were computed. Venn diagrams were constructed to quantitatively compare the degree of overlap among positive test results between the performance-based instruments. RESULTS: The prevalence of cognitive dysfunction for the 163 patients enrolled with complete data collection was 37%, including 5.5% with delirium. Dementia was self-reported in 3%. Caregivers were available to complete the cAD8 for 56% of patients. The SBT, BAS, and O3DY each demonstrated 95% sensitivity, compared with 83% sensitivity for the cAD8. The SBT had a superior specificity of 65%. No combination of instruments with the cAD8 significantly improved diagnostic accuracy. The SBT provided the optimal overlap with the MMSE. CONCLUSIONS: The SBT, BAS, and O3DY are three brief performance-based screening instruments to identify geriatric patients with cognitive dysfunction more rapidly than the MMSE. Among these three instruments, the SBT provides the best diagnostic test characteristics and overlap with MMSE results. The addition of the cAD8 to the other instruments does not enhance diagnostic accuracy.
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet; Jeroen G Lijmer Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-01-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jin H Han; Alessandro Morandi; E Wesley Ely; Clay Callison; Chuan Zhou; Alan B Storrow; Robert S Dittus; Ralf Habermann; John Schnelle Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Kevin M Terrell; Fredric M Hustey; Ula Hwang; Lowell W Gerson; Neil S Wenger; Douglas K Miller Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2009-03-30 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Yuji Nishiwaki; Elizabeth Breeze; Liam Smeeth; Christopher J Bulpitt; Ruth Peters; Astrid E Fletcher Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2004-10-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: K J Neufeld; J S Leoutsakos; F E Sieber; D Joshi; B L Wanamaker; J Rios-Robles; D M Needham Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2013-05-08 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Daniel S Brown; Ira H Bernstein; Shawn M McClintock; C Munro Cullum; Richard B Dewey; Mustafa Husain; Laura H Lacritz Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Mehrdad Razavi; Magdalena I Tolea; Jennifer Margrett; Peter Martin; Andrew Oakland; David W Tscholl; Sarah Ghods; Mazdak Mina; James E Galvin Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2014 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Jin H Han; Amanda Wilson; Amy J Graves; Ayumi Shintani; John F Schnelle; Robert S Dittus; James S Powers; John Vernon; Alan B Storrow; E Wesley Ely Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Susan Stark; Emily Somerville; Jane Conte; Marian Keglovits; Yi-Ling Hu; Christopher Carpenter; Holly Hollingsworth; Yan Yan Journal: Am J Occup Ther Date: 2018 Jan/Feb
Authors: Timothy R Holden; Manish N Shah; Tommy A Gibson; Robert E Weiss; Annick N Yagapen; Susan E Malveau; David H Adler; Aveh Bastani; Christopher W Baugh; Jeffrey M Caterino; Carol L Clark; Deborah B Diercks; Judd E Hollander; Bret A Nicks; Daniel K Nishijima; Kirk A Stiffler; Alan B Storrow; Scott T Wilber; Benjamin C Sun Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2018-03-25 Impact factor: 3.451