Raymond Julius Elefante1, Marcelo Batkis, Archana Nelliot, Karen Abernathy, Kristi Rocha, Freddie Jenkins, Darius Anthony Rastegar, Karin Jane Neufeld. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Canada (RJE); Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, MD (MB, KA, KJN); Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, MD (AN); Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Department of Nursing, MD (KR, FJ); Department of Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, MD (DAR).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Psychiatric illness complicates the assessment of alcohol and sedative withdrawal (ASW). This study measured the diagnostic characteristics of the Revised Clinical Institute Withdrawal Alcohol Assessment (CIWA-Ar) and the Brief Alcohol Withdrawal Scale (BAWS) compared with a reference standard in patients with psychiatric illness and evaluated their administration time. METHODS: This prospective quality improvement (QI) project conducted in November, 2016 evaluated 35 consecutive unique patients in psychiatric settings. Each patient was evaluated on 1 occasion, sequentially by 2 independent examiners with the CIWA-Ar and BAWS. A Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition diagnosis of ASW derived after medical record review by 2 psychiatrists blind to the screening results served as a reference standard. Psychometric properties of the CIWA-Ar and BAWS were measured against the reference. RESULTS: Nineteen (54%) patients had ASW diagnosis by the reference standard. The sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI]) of the CIWA-Ar was 47% (25%-71%) at a cut-off score ≥8; sensitivity of the BAWS was 79% (54%-94%) at a cut-off score ≥3. Specificity (95% CI) for CIWA-Ar and BAWS was 88% (62%-98%) and 88% (62%-98%), respectively. Administration times (interquartile range) for the CIWA-Ar and BAWS were 120 (60-180) and 65 (50-75) seconds, respectively. Receiver operator characteristic area under the curve for CIWA-Ar was 0.77 and for BAWS was 0.76 (P = 0.86). CONCLUSION: Both instruments performed similarly in assessing for mild to moderate ASW in a sample of patients with psychiatric illness. The BAWS took 65 seconds to administer-almost half as much time as the CIWA-Ar.
OBJECTIVE:Psychiatric illness complicates the assessment of alcohol and sedative withdrawal (ASW). This study measured the diagnostic characteristics of the Revised Clinical Institute Withdrawal Alcohol Assessment (CIWA-Ar) and the Brief Alcohol Withdrawal Scale (BAWS) compared with a reference standard in patients with psychiatric illness and evaluated their administration time. METHODS: This prospective quality improvement (QI) project conducted in November, 2016 evaluated 35 consecutive unique patients in psychiatric settings. Each patient was evaluated on 1 occasion, sequentially by 2 independent examiners with the CIWA-Ar and BAWS. A Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition diagnosis of ASW derived after medical record review by 2 psychiatrists blind to the screening results served as a reference standard. Psychometric properties of the CIWA-Ar and BAWS were measured against the reference. RESULTS: Nineteen (54%) patients had ASW diagnosis by the reference standard. The sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI]) of the CIWA-Ar was 47% (25%-71%) at a cut-off score ≥8; sensitivity of the BAWS was 79% (54%-94%) at a cut-off score ≥3. Specificity (95% CI) for CIWA-Ar and BAWS was 88% (62%-98%) and 88% (62%-98%), respectively. Administration times (interquartile range) for the CIWA-Ar and BAWS were 120 (60-180) and 65 (50-75) seconds, respectively. Receiver operator characteristic area under the curve for CIWA-Ar was 0.77 and for BAWS was 0.76 (P = 0.86). CONCLUSION: Both instruments performed similarly in assessing for mild to moderate ASW in a sample of patients with psychiatric illness. The BAWS took 65 seconds to administer-almost half as much time as the CIWA-Ar.
Authors: Melissa A Arabadjief; Omar H Elsayed; Sabina Bashir; Meenakshi R Gundumalla; Derek S Menefee; Cody L Bergman; Nayeem Z Moulana; Rif S El-Mallakh Journal: J Med Case Rep Date: 2022-07-07