Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34902038›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Evaluation of the 3-Minute Diagnostic Confusion Assessment Method for Identification of Postoperative Delirium in Older Patients.

Jordan Oberhaus, Wei Wang, Angela M Mickle, Jennifer Becker, Catherine Tedeschi, Hannah R Maybrier, Ravi T Upadhyayula, Maxwell R Muench, Nan Lin, Eva M Schmitt and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jordan OberhausDepartment of Anesthesiology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Wei WangDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Angela M MickleDepartment of Anesthesiology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Jennifer BeckerDepartment of Anesthesiology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Catherine TedeschiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Hannah R MaybrierDepartment of Anesthesiology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Ravi T UpadhyayulaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Maxwell R MuenchDepartment of Anesthesiology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Nan LinDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Eva M SchmittAging Brain Center, Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew Senior Life, Boston, Massachusetts.
Sharon K InouyeAging Brain Center, Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew Senior Life, Boston, Massachusetts.
Michael S AvidanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Washington University in St. Louis · USHebrew SeniorLife · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Delirium is a common postoperative complication in older patients that often goes undetected and might lead to worse outcomes. The 3-Minute Diagnostic Confusion Assessment Method (3D-CAM) might be a practical tool for routine clinical diagnosis of delirium. Objective: To assess the 3D-CAM for detecting postoperative delirium compared with the long-form CAM used for research purposes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of older patients enrolled in ongoing clinical trials between 2015 and 2018 was conducted at a single tertiary US hospital. Included participants were aged 60 years or older undergoing major elective surgical procedures that required at least a 2-day hospital stay. Data were analyzed between February and April 2019. Exposures: Surgical procedures of at least 2 hours in length requiring general anesthesia with planned extubation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patients were concurrently assessed for delirium using the 3D-CAM assessment and the long-form CAM, scored based on a standardized cognitive assessment. Agreement between these 2 methods was tested using Cohen κ with repeated measures, a generalized linear mixed-effects model, and Bland-Altman analysis. Results: Sixteen raters conducted 471 concurrent CAM and 3D-CAM interviews including 299 patients (mean [SD] age, 69 [6.5] years), the majority of whom were men (152 [50.8%]), were White (263 [88.0%]), and had noncardiac operations (211 [70.6%]). Both instruments had good intraclass correlation (0.84 for the CAM and 0.98 for the 3D-CAM). Cohen κ demonstrated good overall agreement between the CAM and 3D-CAM (κ = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.83). According to the mixed-effects model, there was statistically significant disagreement between the 3D-CAM and CAM (estimated difference in fixed effect, -0.68; 95% CI, -1.32 to -0.05; P = .04). Bland-Altman analysis showed the probability of a delirium diagnosis with the 3D-CAM was more than twice the probability of a delirium diagnosis with the CAM (probability ratio, 2.78; 95% CI, 2.44 to 3.23). Conclusions and Relevance: The 3D-CAM instrument demonstrated agreement with the long-form CAM and might provide a pragmatic and sensitive clinical tool for detecting postoperative delirium, with the caveat that the 3D-CAM might overdiagnose delirium.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesConfusionDeliriumHumansNeuropsychological TestsPostoperative ComplicationsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID34902038
PMCPMC8669542
OpenAlexW4200572554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.