Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29578552›Full record

Observational studyJournal of hospital medicine2018

Focusing on Inattention: The Diagnostic Accuracy of Brief Measures of Inattention for Detecting Delirium.

Annachiara Marra, James C Jackson, E Wesley Ely, Amy J Graves, John F Schnelle, Robert S Dittus, Amanda Wilson, Jin H Han

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of hospital medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Deconstructing delirium in the post anaesthesia care unit.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Succinct Approach to Delirium in the Emergency Department.Current emergency and hospital medicine reports · 2021
    Review
  13. Delirium: A Marker of Vulnerability in Older People.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Annachiara MarraDivision of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
James C JacksonDivision of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
E Wesley ElyDivision of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Amy J GravesDepartment of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
John F SchnelleResearch Service, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Robert S DittusCenter for Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Amanda WilsonDepartment of Psychiatry, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Jin H HanCenter for Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. jin.h.han@vanderbilt.edu.

Funding

VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY CTSA FOR PEDIATRIC RESEARCHUL1RR024975 · NCRR · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI BERNARD, GORDON RAPHAEL · 2007 to 2011
$45.7M
Delirium in the Emergency Department: Novel Screening and Natural CourseK23AG032355 · NIA · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI HAN, JIN HO · 2010 to 2014
$745k
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024975NIA NIH HHS K23 AG032355
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDelirium is frequently missed in most clinical settings. Brief delirium assessments are needed.

objectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of reciting the months of year backwards (MOTYB) from December to July (MOTYB-6) and December to January (MOTYB-12) for delirium as diagnosed by a psychiatrist and to explore the diagnostic accuracies of the following other brief attention tasks: (1) spell the word "LUNCH" backwards, (2) recite the days of the week backwards, (3) 10-letter vigilance "A" task, and (4) 5 picture recognition task.

designPreplanned secondary analysis of a prospective observational study.

settingEmergency department located within an academic, tertiary care hospital.

participants234 acutely ill patients who were =65 years old. MEASUREMENTS: The inattention tasks were administered by a physician. The reference standard for delirium was a comprehensive psychiatrist assessment using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision criteria. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated.

resultsMaking any error on the MOTYB-6 task had a sensitivity of 80.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 60.9%-91.1%) and specificity of 57.1% (95% CI, 50.4%- 63.7%). Making any error on the MOTYB-12 task had a sensitivity of 84.0% (95% CI, 65.4%-93.6%) and specificity of 51.9% (95% CI, 45.2%-58.5%). The best combination of sensitivity and specificity was reciting the days of the week backwards task; if the patient made any error, this was 84.0% (95% CI, 65.4%-93.6%) sensitive and 81.9% (95% CI, 76.1%-86.5%) specific.

conclusionsMOTYB-6 and MOTYB-12 had very good sensitivities but had modest specificities for delirium, limiting their use as a standalone assessment. Reciting the days of the week backwards appeared to have the best combination of sensitivity and specificity for delirium.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalAgedAged, 80 and overAttentionBrief Psychiatric Rating ScaleDeliriumFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID29578552
PMCPMC6502509

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.