Zoë Tieges1, Laura J E Brown, Alasdair M J MacLullich. 1. Edinburgh Delirium Research Group, Geriatric Medicine, Division of Health Sciences, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Inattention is a core feature of delirium, and valid assessment of attention is central to diagnosis. Methods of measuring attention in delirium can be divided into two broad categories: (i) objective neuropsychological testing; and (ii) subjective grading of behaviour during interview and clinical examination. Here, we review and critically evaluate studies of objective neuropsychological testing of attention in delirium. We examine the implications of these studies for delirium detection and monitoring in clinical practice and research, and how these studies inform understanding of the nature of attentional deficits in delirium. METHODS: Searches of MEDLINE and ISI Web of Knowledge databases were performed to identify studies in which objective tests of attention had been administered to patients with delirium, who had been diagnosed using DSM or ICD criteria. RESULTS: Sixteen publications were identified. The attention tests administered in these studies were grouped into the following categories: measures of attention span, vigilance tests, other pen-and-paper tests (e.g. Trail Making Test) and computerised tests of speeded reaction, vigilance and sustained attention. Patients with delirium showed deficits on all tasks, although most tasks were not considered pure measures of attention. Five papers provided data on differential diagnosis from dementia. Cancellation tests, spatial span tests and computerised tests of sustained attention discriminated delirium from dementia. Five studies presented reliability or validity statistics. CONCLUSIONS: The existing evidence base on objective assessment of attention in delirium is small. Objective testing of attention is underdeveloped but shows considerable promise in clinical practice and research.
OBJECTIVE: Inattention is a core feature of delirium, and valid assessment of attention is central to diagnosis. Methods of measuring attention in delirium can be divided into two broad categories: (i) objective neuropsychological testing; and (ii) subjective grading of behaviour during interview and clinical examination. Here, we review and critically evaluate studies of objective neuropsychological testing of attention in delirium. We examine the implications of these studies for delirium detection and monitoring in clinical practice and research, and how these studies inform understanding of the nature of attentional deficits in delirium. METHODS: Searches of MEDLINE and ISI Web of Knowledge databases were performed to identify studies in which objective tests of attention had been administered to patients with delirium, who had been diagnosed using DSM or ICD criteria. RESULTS: Sixteen publications were identified. The attention tests administered in these studies were grouped into the following categories: measures of attention span, vigilance tests, other pen-and-paper tests (e.g. Trail Making Test) and computerised tests of speeded reaction, vigilance and sustained attention. Patients with delirium showed deficits on all tasks, although most tasks were not considered pure measures of attention. Five papers provided data on differential diagnosis from dementia. Cancellation tests, spatial span tests and computerised tests of sustained attention discriminated delirium from dementia. Five studies presented reliability or validity statistics. CONCLUSIONS: The existing evidence base on objective assessment of attention in delirium is small. Objective testing of attention is underdeveloped but shows considerable promise in clinical practice and research.
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: Alessandro Morandi; Daniel Davis; Giuseppe Bellelli; Rakesh C Arora; Gideon A Caplan; Barbara Kamholz; Ann Kolanowski; Donna Marie Fick; Stefan Kreisel; Alasdair MacLullich; David Meagher; Karen Neufeld; Pratik P Pandharipande; Sarah Richardson; Arjen J C Slooter; John P Taylor; Christine Thomas; Zoë Tieges; Andrew Teodorczuk; Philippe Voyer; James L Rudolph Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Lisa-Marie Rutter; Eva Nouzova; David J Stott; Christopher J Weir; Valentina Assi; Jennifer H Barnett; Caoimhe Clarke; Nikki Duncan; Jonathan Evans; Samantha Green; Kirsty Hendry; Meigan McGinlay; Jenny McKeever; Duncan G Middleton; Stuart Parks; Robert Shaw; Elaine Tang; Tim Walsh; Alexander J Weir; Elizabeth Wilson; Tara Quasim; Alasdair M J MacLullich; Zoë Tieges Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Letty Oudewortel; Karlijn J Joling; Cees M P M Hertogh; Viona J M Wijnen; Anne A M van der Brug; Willem A van Gool Journal: Int Psychogeriatr Date: 2018-07-23 Impact factor: 3.878
Authors: Zoë Tieges; David J Stott; Robert Shaw; Elaine Tang; Lisa-Marie Rutter; Eva Nouzova; Nikki Duncan; Caoimhe Clarke; Christopher J Weir; Valentina Assi; Hannah Ensor; Jennifer H Barnett; Jonathan Evans; Samantha Green; Kirsty Hendry; Meigan Thomson; Jenny McKeever; Duncan G Middleton; Stuart Parks; Tim Walsh; Alexander J Weir; Elizabeth Wilson; Tara Quasim; Alasdair M J MacLullich Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Alessandro Morandi; Jin H Han; David Meagher; Eduard Vasilevskis; Joaquim Cerejeira; Wolfgang Hasemann; Alasdair M J MacLullich; Giorgio Annoni; Marco Trabucchi; Giuseppe Bellelli Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 4.669