OBJECTIVES: To compare performance characteristics of the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) algorithm for screening and delirium diagnosis with criteria for delirium from the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) in high-risk individuals. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Academic geriatric hospital. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred two individuals aged 80 to 100 hospitalized for acute medical illness. MEASUREMENTS: Complete CAM instrument (nine items), scored using the four-item CAM diagnostic algorithm. Criterion standard classification of delirium was rated independently according to expert consensus based on DSM-IV and ICD-10 criteria for delirium. RESULTS: In 79 hospitalized participants, the CAM performed well for delirium screening (delirium prevalence of 24% according to DSM-IV and 14% according to ICD-10). Of all CAM features, acute onset and fluctuating course are most important for diagnosis (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) = 0.92 in DSM-IV and 0.83 in ICD-10). The CAM diagnostic algorithm had a sensitivity of 0.74, a specificity of 1.0, and an AUC of 0.88 compared with the DSM-IV reference standard and a sensitivity of 0.82, a specificity of 0.91, and an AUC of 0.85 compared with the ICD-10. Compared with the ICD-10, adding psychomotor change to the CAM algorithm improved specificity to 97%, but sensitivity fell to 55% (AUC = 0.96). Applying psychomotor change sequentially only to the group that the CAM algorithm identified as having no delirium improved sensitivity to 91% with specificity of 85% (AUC = 0.95). CONCLUSION: Although the CAM diagnostic algorithm performed well against a DSM-IV reference standard, adding psychomotor change to the CAM algorithm improved specificity and diagnostic value against ICD-10 criteria overall in older adults with dementia and improved sensitivity and screening performance when applied sequentially in CAM-negative individuals.
OBJECTIVES: To compare performance characteristics of the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) algorithm for screening and delirium diagnosis with criteria for delirium from the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) in high-risk individuals. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Academic geriatric hospital. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred two individuals aged 80 to 100 hospitalized for acute medical illness. MEASUREMENTS: Complete CAM instrument (nine items), scored using the four-item CAM diagnostic algorithm. Criterion standard classification of delirium was rated independently according to expert consensus based on DSM-IV and ICD-10 criteria for delirium. RESULTS: In 79 hospitalized participants, the CAM performed well for delirium screening (delirium prevalence of 24% according to DSM-IV and 14% according to ICD-10). Of all CAM features, acute onset and fluctuating course are most important for diagnosis (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) = 0.92 in DSM-IV and 0.83 in ICD-10). The CAM diagnostic algorithm had a sensitivity of 0.74, a specificity of 1.0, and an AUC of 0.88 compared with the DSM-IV reference standard and a sensitivity of 0.82, a specificity of 0.91, and an AUC of 0.85 compared with the ICD-10. Compared with the ICD-10, adding psychomotor change to the CAM algorithm improved specificity to 97%, but sensitivity fell to 55% (AUC = 0.96). Applying psychomotor change sequentially only to the group that the CAM algorithm identified as having no delirium improved sensitivity to 91% with specificity of 85% (AUC = 0.95). CONCLUSION: Although the CAM diagnostic algorithm performed well against a DSM-IV reference standard, adding psychomotor change to the CAM algorithm improved specificity and diagnostic value against ICD-10 criteria overall in older adults with dementia and improved sensitivity and screening performance when applied sequentially in CAM-negative individuals.
Authors: M D Miller; C F Paradis; P R Houck; S Mazumdar; J A Stack; A H Rifai; B Mulsant; C F Reynolds Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 1992-03 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Laurie R Archbald-Pannone; Timothy L McMurry; Richard L Guerrant; Cirle A Warren Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: David J Meagher; Alessandro Morandi; Sharon K Inouye; Wes Ely; Dimitrios Adamis; Alasdair J Maclullich; James L Rudolph; Karin Neufeld; Maeve Leonard; Giuseppe Bellelli; Daniel Davis; Andrew Teodorczuk; Stefan Kreisel; Christine Thomas; Wolfgang Hasemann; Suzanne Timmons; Niamh O'Regan; Sandeep Grover; Faiza Jabbar; Walter Cullen; Colum Dunne; Barbara Kamholz; Barbara C Van Munster; Sophia E De Rooij; Jos De Jonghe; Paula T Trzepacz Journal: BMC Med Date: 2014-09-30 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Nathan E Brummel; Eduard E Vasilevskis; Jin Ho Han; Leanne Boehm; Brenda T Pun; E Wesley Ely Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Susan D Shenkin; Christopher Fox; Mary Godfrey; Najma Siddiqi; Steve Goodacre; John Young; Atul Anand; Alasdair Gray; Janet Hanley; Allan MacRaild; Jill Steven; Polly L Black; Zoë Tieges; Julia Boyd; Jacqueline Stephen; Christopher J Weir; Alasdair M J MacLullich Journal: BMC Med Date: 2019-07-24 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Simone Brefka; Gerhard Wilhelm Eschweiler; Dhayana Dallmeier; Michael Denkinger; Christoph Leinert Journal: Z Gerontol Geriatr Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 1.292