Karin J Neufeld1, Archana Nelliot2, Sharon K Inouye3, E Wesley Ely4, O Joseph Bienvenu5, Hochang Benjamin Lee6, Dale M Needham7. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. Electronic address: kneufel2@jhmi.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 3. Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew Senior Life, Boston, MA. 4. Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Center for Health Services Research, Vanderbilt School of Medicine, Nashville, TN; Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, TN. 5. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 6. Psychological Medicine Service, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT. 7. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe methodology used to diagnose delirium in research studies evaluating delirium detection tools. METHODS: The authors used a survey to address reference rater methodology for delirium diagnosis, including rater characteristics, sources of patient information, and diagnostic process, completed via web or telephone interview according to respondent preference. Participants were authors of 39 studies included in three recent systematic reviews of delirium detection instruments in hospitalized patients. RESULTS: Authors from 85% (N = 33) of the 39 eligible studies responded to the survey. The median number of raters per study was 2.5 (interquartile range: 2-3); 79% were physicians. The raters' median duration of clinical experience with delirium diagnosis was 7 years (interquartile range: 4-10), with 5% having no prior clinical experience. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated in 70% of studies. Cognitive tests and delirium detection tools were used in the delirium reference rating process in 61% (N = 21) and 45% (N = 15) of studies, respectively, with 33% (N = 11) using both and 27% (N = 9) using neither. When patients were too drowsy or declined to participate in delirium evaluation, 70% of studies (N = 23) used all available information for delirium diagnosis, whereas 15% excluded such patients. CONCLUSION: Significant variability exists in reference standard methods for delirium diagnosis in published research. Increasing standardization by documenting inter-rater reliability, using standardized cognitive and delirium detection tools, incorporating diagnostic expert consensus panels, and using all available information in patients declining or unable to participate with formal testing may help advance delirium research by increasing consistency of case detection and improving generalizability of research results.
OBJECTIVE: To describe methodology used to diagnose delirium in research studies evaluating delirium detection tools. METHODS: The authors used a survey to address reference rater methodology for delirium diagnosis, including rater characteristics, sources of patient information, and diagnostic process, completed via web or telephone interview according to respondent preference. Participants were authors of 39 studies included in three recent systematic reviews of delirium detection instruments in hospitalized patients. RESULTS: Authors from 85% (N = 33) of the 39 eligible studies responded to the survey. The median number of raters per study was 2.5 (interquartile range: 2-3); 79% were physicians. The raters' median duration of clinical experience with delirium diagnosis was 7 years (interquartile range: 4-10), with 5% having no prior clinical experience. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated in 70% of studies. Cognitive tests and delirium detection tools were used in the delirium reference rating process in 61% (N = 21) and 45% (N = 15) of studies, respectively, with 33% (N = 11) using both and 27% (N = 9) using neither. When patients were too drowsy or declined to participate in delirium evaluation, 70% of studies (N = 23) used all available information for delirium diagnosis, whereas 15% excluded such patients. CONCLUSION: Significant variability exists in reference standard methods for delirium diagnosis in published research. Increasing standardization by documenting inter-rater reliability, using standardized cognitive and delirium detection tools, incorporating diagnostic expert consensus panels, and using all available information in patients declining or unable to participate with formal testing may help advance delirium research by increasing consistency of case detection and improving generalizability of research results.
Authors: Timothy D Girard; James C Jackson; Pratik P Pandharipande; Brenda T Pun; Jennifer L Thompson; Ayumi K Shintani; Sharon M Gordon; Angelo E Canonico; Robert S Dittus; Gordon R Bernard; E Wesley Ely Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: A C Toro; L M Escobar; J G Franco; J L Díaz-Gómez; J F Muñoz; F Molina; J Bejarano; D Yepes; E Navarro; A García; Wesley E Ely; A Esteban Journal: Med Intensiva Date: 2009-09-30 Impact factor: 2.491
Authors: Susan E Swigart; Yasuhiro Kishi; Steven Thurber; Roger G Kathol; William H Meller Journal: Psychosomatics Date: 2008 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.386
Authors: Alvin Thomas; Christine E Haugen; Alexandra Mountford; Fatima Warsame; Rachel Berkowitz; Sunjae Bae; Charles H Brown; Daniel C Brennan; Karin J Neufeld; Michelle C Carlson; Dorry L Segev; Mara McAdams-DeMarco Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2018-04-23 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Benjamin K I Helfand; Elke Detroyer; Koen Milisen; Dimitrios Adamis; Eran D Metzger; Edwin D Boudreaux; Sharon K Inouye; Richard N Jones Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Benjamin K I Helfand; Douglas Tommet; Elke Detroyer; Koen Milisen; Dimitrios Adamis; Eran D Metzger; Edward R Marcantonio; Edwin D Boudreaux; Sharon K Inouye; Richard N Jones Journal: Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Date: 2022-05-09 Impact factor: 3.346
Authors: Donna M Fick; Sharon K Inouye; Jamey Guess; Long H Ngo; Richard N Jones; Jane S Saczynski; Edward R Marcantonio Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Karin J Neufeld; Jirong Yue; Thomas N Robinson; Sharon K Inouye; Dale M Needham Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2016-03-23 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Charles H Brown; Andrew Laflam; Laura Max; Daria Lymar; Karin J Neufeld; Jing Tian; Ashish S Shah; Glenn J Whitman; Charles W Hogue Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Benjamin K I Helfand; Madeline L D'Aquila; Patricia Tabloski; Kristen Erickson; Jirong Yue; Tamara G Fong; Tammy T Hshieh; Eran D Metzger; Eva M Schmitt; Edwin D Boudreaux; Sharon K Inouye; Richard N Jones Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 5.562