ArticleBMC medical research methodology2013
Selecting optimal screening items for delirium: an application of item response theory.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Implementation of a Brief App-Directed Protocol for Delirium Identification by Hospitalists, Nurses, and Nursing Assistants : A Cohort Study.Annals of internal medicine · 2022Article
- Ultrabrief Screens for Detecting Delirium in Postoperative Cognitively Intact Older Adults.Journal of hospital medicine · 2020Article
- Ultra-brief Screeners for Detecting Delirium Superimposed on Dementia.Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2019Article
- Treatment-seeking behaviour in low- and middle-income countries estimated using a Bayesian model.BMC medical research methodology · 2017Article
- Derivation and Validation of a Severity Scoring Method for the 3-Minute Diagnostic Interview for Confusion Assessment Method--Defined Delirium.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2016Article
- Testing the functional assessment of mentation: A mobile application based assessment of mental status.Journal of hospital medicine · 2016Observational
- Preliminary development of an ultrabrief two-item bedside test for delirium.Journal of hospital medicine · 2015Article
- The American Geriatrics Society/National Institute on Aging Bedside-to-Bench Conference: Research Agenda on Delirium in Older Adults.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2015Article
- 3D-CAM: derivation and validation of a 3-minute diagnostic interview for CAM-defined delirium: a cross-sectional diagnostic test study.Annals of internal medicine · 2014Article
- Delirium diagnosis, screening and management.Current opinion in supportive and palliative care · 2014Review
- Delirium risk prediction, healthcare use and mortality of elderly adults in the emergency department.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDelirium (acute confusion), is a common, morbid, and costly complication of acute illness in older adults. Yet, researchers and clinicians lack short, efficient, and sensitive case identification tools for delirium. Though the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) is the most widely used algorithm for delirium, the existing assessments that operationalize the CAM algorithm may be too long or complicated for routine clinical use. Item response theory (IRT) models help facilitate the development of short screening tools for use in clinical applications or research studies. This study utilizes IRT to identify a reduced set of optimally performing screening indicators for the four CAM features of delirium.
methodsOlder adults were screened for enrollment in a large scale delirium study conducted in Boston-area post-acute facilities (n = 4,598). Trained interviewers conducted a structured delirium assessment that culminated in rating the presence or absence of four features of delirium based on the CAM. A pool of 135 indicators from established cognitive testing and delirium assessment tools were assigned by an expert panel into two indicator sets per CAM feature representing (a) direct interview questions, including cognitive testing, and (b) interviewer observations. We used IRT models to identify the best items to screen for each feature of delirium.
resultsWe identified 10 dimensions and chose up to five indicators per dimension. Preference was given to items with peak psychometric information in the latent trait region relevant for screening for delirium. The final set of 48 indicators, derived from 39 items, maintains fidelity to clinical constructs of delirium and maximizes psychometric information relevant for screening.
conclusionsWe identified optimal indicators from a large item pool to screen for delirium. The selected indicators maintain fidelity to clinical constructs of delirium while maximizing psychometric information important for screening. This reduced item set facilitates development of short screening tools suitable for use in clinical applications or research studies. This study represents the first step in the establishment of an item bank for delirium screening with potential questions for clinical researchers to select from and tailor according to their research objectives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.