Dimitrios Adamis1, Siobhan Rooney2, David Meagher3, Owen Mulligan1, Geraldine McCarthy2. 1. Sligo Mental Health Services,Clarion Rd Sligo,Ireland. 2. Sligo Medical Academy,NUI Galway,Sligo Mental Health Services Clarion Rd Sligo,Ireland. 3. Cognitive Impairment Research Group (CIRG),Graduate-Entry Medical School University of Limerick,Ireland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The recently published DSM-5 criteria for delirium may lead to different case identification and rates of delirium than previous classifications. The aims of this study are to determine how the new DSM-5 criteria compare with DSM-IV in identification of delirium in elderly medical inpatients and to investigate the agreement between different methods, using CAM, DRS-R98, DSM-IV, and DSM-5 criteria. METHODS: Prospective, observational study of elderly patients aged 70+ admitted under the acute medical teams in a regional general hospital. Each participant was assessed within 3 days of admission using the DSM-5, and DSM-IV criteria plus the DRS-R98, and CAM scales. RESULTS: We assessed 200 patients [mean age 81.1±6.5; 50% female; pre-existing cognitive impairment in 63%]. The prevalence rates of delirium for each diagnostic method were: 13.0% (n = 26) for DSM-5; 19.5% (n = 39) for DSM-IV; 13.5% (n = 27) for DRS-R98 and 17.0%, (n = 34) for CAM. Using tetrachoric correlation coefficients the agreement between DSM-5 and DSM-IV was statistically significant (ρtetr = 0.64, SE = 0.1, p < 0.0001). Similar significant agreement was found between the four methods. CONCLUSIONS: DSM-IV is the most inclusive diagnostic method for delirium, while DSM-5 is the most restrictive. In addition, these classification systems identify different cases of delirium. This could have clinical, financial, and research implications. However, both classification systems have significant agreement in the identification of the same concept (delirium). Clarity of diagnosis is required for classification but also further research considering the relevance in predicting outcomes can allow for more detailed evaluation of the DSM-5 criteria.
BACKGROUND: The recently published DSM-5 criteria for delirium may lead to different case identification and rates of delirium than previous classifications. The aims of this study are to determine how the new DSM-5 criteria compare with DSM-IV in identification of delirium in elderly medical inpatients and to investigate the agreement between different methods, using CAM, DRS-R98, DSM-IV, and DSM-5 criteria. METHODS: Prospective, observational study of elderly patients aged 70+ admitted under the acute medical teams in a regional general hospital. Each participant was assessed within 3 days of admission using the DSM-5, and DSM-IV criteria plus the DRS-R98, and CAM scales. RESULTS: We assessed 200 patients [mean age 81.1±6.5; 50% female; pre-existing cognitive impairment in 63%]. The prevalence rates of delirium for each diagnostic method were: 13.0% (n = 26) for DSM-5; 19.5% (n = 39) for DSM-IV; 13.5% (n = 27) for DRS-R98 and 17.0%, (n = 34) for CAM. Using tetrachoric correlation coefficients the agreement between DSM-5 and DSM-IV was statistically significant (ρtetr = 0.64, SE = 0.1, p < 0.0001). Similar significant agreement was found between the four methods. CONCLUSIONS: DSM-IV is the most inclusive diagnostic method for delirium, while DSM-5 is the most restrictive. In addition, these classification systems identify different cases of delirium. This could have clinical, financial, and research implications. However, both classification systems have significant agreement in the identification of the same concept (delirium). Clarity of diagnosis is required for classification but also further research considering the relevance in predicting outcomes can allow for more detailed evaluation of the DSM-5 criteria.
Authors: Annie M Racine; Tamara G Fong; Thomas G Travison; Richard N Jones; Yun Gou; Sarinnapha M Vasunilashorn; Edward R Marcantonio; David C Alsop; Sharon K Inouye; Bradford C Dickerson Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Daijiro Hori; Laura Max; Andrew Laflam; Charles Brown; Karin J Neufeld; Hideo Adachi; Christopher Sciortino; John V Conte; Duke E Cameron; Charles W Hogue; Kaushik Mandal Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 2.628
Authors: Wolfgang Hasemann; Florian F Grossmann; Rahel Stadler; Roland Bingisser; Dieter Breil; Martina Hafner; Reto W Kressig; Christian H Nickel Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2017-12-30 Impact factor: 3.397
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: Jin H Han; Amanda Wilson; Amy J Graves; Ayumi Shintani; John F Schnelle; E Wesley Ely Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Esteban Sepulveda; Maeve Leonard; Jose G Franco; Dimitrios Adamis; Geraldine McCarthy; Colum Dunne; Paula T Trzepacz; Ana M Gaviria; Joan de Pablo; Elisabet Vilella; David J Meagher Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2016-12-01
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