ArticleDementia and geriatric cognitive disorders2022
Delirium Item Bank: Utilization to Evaluate and Create Delirium Instruments.
Article in Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe large number of heterogeneous instruments in active use for identification of delirium prevents direct comparison of studies and the ability to combine results. In a recent systematic review we performed, we recommended four commonly used and well-validated instruments and subsequently harmonized them using advanced psychometric methods to develop an item bank, the Delirium Item Bank (DEL-IB). The goal of the present study was to find optimal cut-points on four existing instruments and to demonstrate use of the DEL-IB to create new instruments.
methodsWe used a secondary analysis and simulation study based on data from three previous studies of hospitalized older adults (age 65+ years) in the USA, Ireland, and Belgium. The combined dataset included 600 participants, contributing 1,623 delirium assessments, and an overall incidence of delirium of about 22%. The measurements included the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition diagnostic criteria for delirium, Confusion Assessment Method (long form and short form), Delirium Observation Screening Scale, Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (total and severity scores), and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS).
resultsWe identified different cut-points for each existing instrument to optimize sensitivity or specificity, and compared instrument performance at each cut-point to the author-defined cut-point. For instance, the cut-point on the MDAS that maximizes both sensitivity and specificity was at a sum score of 6 yielding 89% sensitivity and 79% specificity. We then created four new example instruments (two short forms and two long forms) and evaluated their performance characteristics. In the first example short form instrument, the cut-point that maximizes sensitivity and specificity was at a sum score of 3 yielding 90% sensitivity, 81% specificity, 30% positive predictive value, and 99% negative predictive value. DISCUSSION/
conclusionWe used the DEL-IB to better understand the psychometric performance of widely used delirium identification instruments and scorings, and also demonstrated its use to create new instruments. Ultimately, we hope that the DEL-IB might be used to create optimized delirium identification instruments and to spur the development of a unified approach to identify delirium.
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.