Dimitrios Adamis1,2, David Meagher3, Orla Murray4, Donagh O'Neill1, Edmond O'Mahony1, Owen Mulligan1, Geraldine McCarthy1. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Sligo Mental Health Services, Sligo, Ireland. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Research and Academic Institute of Athens, Athens, Greece. 3. Cognitive Impairment Research Group (CIRG), Graduate-Entry Medical School, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland. 4. Medical Student Sligo Medical Academy, NUI Galway, Sligo, Ireland.
Abstract
AIM: Impaired attention is a core diagnostic feature for delirium. The present study examined the discriminating properties for patients with delirium versus those with dementia and/or no neurocognitive disorder of four objective tests of attention: digit span, vigilance "A" test, serial 7s subtraction and months of the year backwards together with global clinical subjective rating of attention. METHODS: This as a prospective study of older patients admitted consecutively in a general hospital. Participants were assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method, Delirium Rating Scale-98 Revised and Montreal Cognitive Assessment scales, and months of the year backwards. Pre-existing dementia was diagnosed according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition criteria. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 200 participants (mean age 81.1 ± 6.5 years; 50% women; pre-existing cognitive impairment in 126 [63%]). A total of 34 (17%) were identified with delirium (Confusion Assessment Method +). The five approaches to assessing attention had statistically significant correlations (P < 0.05). Discriminant analysis showed that clinical subjective rating of attention in conjunction with the months of the year backwards had the best discriminatory ability to identify Confusion Assessment Method-defined delirium, and to discriminate patients with delirium from those with dementia and/or normal cognition. Both of these approaches had high sensitivity, but modest specificity. CONCLUSION: Objective tests are useful for prediction of non-delirium, but lack specificity for a delirium diagnosis. Global attentional deficits were more indicative of delirium than deficits of specific domains of attention. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2016; 16: 1028-1035.
AIM: Impaired attention is a core diagnostic feature for delirium. The present study examined the discriminating properties for patients with delirium versus those with dementia and/or no neurocognitive disorder of four objective tests of attention: digit span, vigilance "A" test, serial 7s subtraction and months of the year backwards together with global clinical subjective rating of attention. METHODS: This as a prospective study of older patients admitted consecutively in a general hospital. Participants were assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method, Delirium Rating Scale-98 Revised and Montreal Cognitive Assessment scales, and months of the year backwards. Pre-existing dementia was diagnosed according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition criteria. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 200 participants (mean age 81.1 ± 6.5 years; 50% women; pre-existing cognitive impairment in 126 [63%]). A total of 34 (17%) were identified with delirium (Confusion Assessment Method +). The five approaches to assessing attention had statistically significant correlations (P < 0.05). Discriminant analysis showed that clinical subjective rating of attention in conjunction with the months of the year backwards had the best discriminatory ability to identify Confusion Assessment Method-defined delirium, and to discriminate patients with delirium from those with dementia and/or normal cognition. Both of these approaches had high sensitivity, but modest specificity. CONCLUSION: Objective tests are useful for prediction of non-delirium, but lack specificity for a delirium diagnosis. Global attentional deficits were more indicative of delirium than deficits of specific domains of attention. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2016; 16: 1028-1035.
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: Antara Banerji; Jamie W Sleigh; Logan J Voss; Paul S Garcia; Amy L Gaskell Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2022-10-04 Impact factor: 5.702
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: David J Meagher; Henry O'Connell; Maeve Leonard; Olugbenga Williams; Fahad Awan; Chris Exton; Michael Tenorio; Margaret O'Connor; Colum P Dunne; Walter Cullen; John McFarland; Dimitrios Adamis Journal: World J Psychiatry Date: 2020-04-19
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: Padraic Nicholas; Rónán O'Caoimh; Yang Gao; Afsana Habib; Thomas Karol Mross; Roger Clarnette; D William Molloy Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-09-22 Impact factor: 3.390