Observational studyInternal and emergency medicine2024
Usefulness of the 4A's test for detecting delirium in critically ill patients: a multicenter prospective observation study.
Observational study in Internal and emergency medicine, 2024. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) is a robust and reliable instrument for discerning delirium within the specific context of the intensive care unit (ICU). Nonetheless, the CAM-ICU is burdened by various limitations, including a protracted learning curve and the need for frequent daily administration. The 4 A's Test (4AT) was formulated to assess delirium in hospitalized patients and may have distinct advantages over the CAM-ICU, particularly regarding practical applicability within the ICU bundle. This study was performed to assess the utility of the 4AT in detecting delirium in critically ill patients. This multicenter prospective observational study involved critically ill patients at four academic tertiary care hospitals in South Korea from June 2021 to September 2022. In total, 274 patients (median age, 64 years; 56.9% men) were included, and 75 (27.4%) developed delirium. The 4AT showed good performance in detecting ICU delirium (area under the curve, 0.879; P < 0.001). The 4AT showed a sensitivity of 74.0%, specificity of 95.4%, positive predictive value of 77.5%, negative predictive value of 94.6%, and accuracy of 91.7% for ICU detection of delirium. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of the CAM-ICU for detecting ICU delirium were 71.3%, 97.1%, 83.8%, 94.1%, and 92.6%, respectively. The 4AT showed acceptable reliability and validity for detecting ICU delirium in critically ill patients. Because the 4AT is simpler and easier to learn, this scale could be a useful alternative to the CAM-ICU for detecting delirium in critically ill patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38907758What 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.