Kirsty Hendry1, Terence J Quinn2, Jonathan Evans3, Valeria Scortichini4, Hazel Miller5, Jennifer Burns5, AnneLouise Cunnington6, David J Stott2. 1. Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. 2. Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. 3. Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. 4. Department of Medical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 5. Department of Medicine for the Elderly, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK. 6. Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS-Geriatrics, Glasgow, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: screening all unscheduled older adults for delirium is recommended in national guidelines, but there is no consensus on how to perform initial assessment. AIM: to evaluate the test accuracy of five brief cognitive assessment tools for delirium diagnosis in routine clinical practice. METHODS: a consecutive cohort of non-elective, elderly care (older than 65 years) hospital inpatients admitted to a geriatric medical assessment unit of an urban teaching hospital. Reference assessments were clinical diagnosis of delirium performed by elderly care physicians. Routine screening tests were: Abbreviated Mental Test (AMT-10, AMT-4), 4 A's Test (4AT), brief Confusion Assessment Method (bCAM), months of the year backwards (MOTYB) and informant Single Question in Delirium (SQiD). RESULTS: we assessed 500 patients, mean age 83 years (range = 66-101). Clinical diagnoses were: 93 of 500 (18.6%) definite delirium, 104 of 500 (20.8%) possible delirium and 277 of 500 (55.4%) no delirium; 266 of 500 (53.2%) were identified as definite or possible dementia. For diagnosis of definite delirium, AMT-4 (cut-point < 3/4) had a sensitivity of 92.7% (95% confidence interval (CI): 84.8-97.3), with a specificity of 53.7% (95% CI: 48.1-59.2); AMT-10 (<4/10), MOTYB (<4/12) and SQiD showed similar performance. bCAM had a sensitivity of 70.3% (95% CI: 58.5-80.3) with a specificity of 91.4% (95% CI: 87.7-94.3). 4AT (>4/12) had a sensitivity of 86.7% (95% CI: 77.5-93.2) and specificity of 69.5% (95% CI: 64.4-74.3). CONCLUSIONS: short screening tools such as AMT-4 or MOTYB have good sensitivity for definite delirium, but poor specificity; these tools may be reasonable as a first stage in assessment for delirium. The 4AT is feasible and appears to perform well with good sensitivity and reasonable specificity.
INTRODUCTION: screening all unscheduled older adults for delirium is recommended in national guidelines, but there is no consensus on how to perform initial assessment. AIM: to evaluate the test accuracy of five brief cognitive assessment tools for delirium diagnosis in routine clinical practice. METHODS: a consecutive cohort of non-elective, elderly care (older than 65 years) hospital inpatients admitted to a geriatric medical assessment unit of an urban teaching hospital. Reference assessments were clinical diagnosis of delirium performed by elderly care physicians. Routine screening tests were: Abbreviated Mental Test (AMT-10, AMT-4), 4 A's Test (4AT), brief Confusion Assessment Method (bCAM), months of the year backwards (MOTYB) and informant Single Question in Delirium (SQiD). RESULTS: we assessed 500 patients, mean age 83 years (range = 66-101). Clinical diagnoses were: 93 of 500 (18.6%) definite delirium, 104 of 500 (20.8%) possible delirium and 277 of 500 (55.4%) no delirium; 266 of 500 (53.2%) were identified as definite or possible dementia. For diagnosis of definite delirium, AMT-4 (cut-point < 3/4) had a sensitivity of 92.7% (95% confidence interval (CI): 84.8-97.3), with a specificity of 53.7% (95% CI: 48.1-59.2); AMT-10 (<4/10), MOTYB (<4/12) and SQiD showed similar performance. bCAM had a sensitivity of 70.3% (95% CI: 58.5-80.3) with a specificity of 91.4% (95% CI: 87.7-94.3). 4AT (>4/12) had a sensitivity of 86.7% (95% CI: 77.5-93.2) and specificity of 69.5% (95% CI: 64.4-74.3). CONCLUSIONS: short screening tools such as AMT-4 or MOTYB have good sensitivity for definite delirium, but poor specificity; these tools may be reasonable as a first stage in assessment for delirium. The 4AT is feasible and appears to perform well with good sensitivity and reasonable specificity.
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: Lucy C Beishon; Emma Elliott; Tuuli M Hietamies; Riona Mc Ardle; Aoife O'Mahony; Amy R Elliott; Terry J Quinn Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-04-08
Authors: Luca Pasina; Lorenzo Colzani; Laura Cortesi; Mauro Tettamanti; Antonella Zambon; Alessandro Nobili; Andrea Mazzone; Paolo Mazzola; Giorgio Annoni; Giuseppe Bellelli Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Marco Canevelli; Martina Valletta; Alessandro Trebbastoni; Giuseppe Sarli; Fabrizia D'Antonio; Leonardo Tariciotti; Carlo de Lena; Giuseppe Bruno Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2016-12-27
Authors: Honoria Ocagli; Daniele Bottigliengo; Giulia Lorenzoni; Danila Azzolina; Aslihan S Acar; Silvia Sorgato; Lucia Stivanello; Mario Degan; Dario Gregori Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Dawn O'Sullivan; Noeleen Brady; Edmund Manning; Emma O'Shea; Síle O'Grady; Niamh O 'Regan; Suzanne Timmons Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Susan D Shenkin; Christopher Fox; Mary Godfrey; Najma Siddiqi; Steve Goodacre; John Young; Atul Anand; Alasdair Gray; Joel Smith; Tracy Ryan; Janet Hanley; Allan MacRaild; Jill Steven; Polly L Black; Julia Boyd; Christopher J Weir; Alasdair Mj MacLullich Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-02-10 Impact factor: 2.692