TY - JOUR
T1 - Validation of the delirium diagnostic tool-provisional (DDT-Pro) with medical inpatients and comparison with the confusion assessment method algorithm
AU - Franco, José G.
AU - Ocampo, María V.
AU - Velásquez-Tirado, Juan D.
AU - Zaraza, Daniel R.
AU - Giraldo, Alejandra M.
AU - Serna, Paola A.
AU - López, Carolina
AU - Zuluaga, Adolfo
AU - Sepúlveda, Esteban
AU - Kean, Jacob
AU - Trzepacz, Paula T.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020, American Psychiatric Association. All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/6/1
Y1 - 2020/6/1
N2 - Objective: Delirium remains underdetected as a result of its broad constellation of symptoms and the inadequate neu-ropsychiatric expertise of most medical-surgical clinicians. Brief, accurate tools are needed to enhance detection. Methods: The authors extended validation of the Delirium Diagnostic Tool-Provisional (DDT-Pro), originally validated in a study of inpatients with traumatic brain injury for diagnosis of delirium by nonexpert clinicians, for 200 general medical inpatients in Colombia. The three structured, quantitatively rated items in DDT-Pro represent the three core delirium domains. Results: High interrater reliability between physician and nurse (0.873) administrators, internal consistency (.0.81), and content validity were found. Compared with independent reference standard diagnosis with DSM-5 or the Delirium Rating Scale–Revised-98, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (global diagnostic ac-curacy) range was 93.8%296.3%. ROC analysis revealed the same cutoff score (#6) as that for the original study, with somewhat lower sensitivities of 88.0%290.0% and specificities of 85.3%281.2% (independent expert physician or nurse ratings). Even when rated by a trained expert phy-sician, the original version of the Confusion Assessment Method algorithm (CAM-A) performed moderately, with lower sensitivities (61.8%270.0%) than the DDT-Pro (88.0%2 100%) and somewhat higher specificities (84.8%295.3% versus 67.4%286.7%), with values depending on dementia status, reference standard, and rater type. Accuracies for the DDT-Pro and CAM-A were comparable (DDT-Pro: 83.0%2 87.5% versus CAM-A: 87.5%288.5%), although lower in the dementia subgroup, especially for CAM-A. However, these tools were significantly discordant, especially in negative cases, which suggests that they do not detect diagnosis of patients in the same way. Conclusions: The DDT-Pro had high validity and reliability in provisional delirium diagnosis by physicians and nonexpert clinicians, although further validation is warranted before widespread use can be recommended.
AB - Objective: Delirium remains underdetected as a result of its broad constellation of symptoms and the inadequate neu-ropsychiatric expertise of most medical-surgical clinicians. Brief, accurate tools are needed to enhance detection. Methods: The authors extended validation of the Delirium Diagnostic Tool-Provisional (DDT-Pro), originally validated in a study of inpatients with traumatic brain injury for diagnosis of delirium by nonexpert clinicians, for 200 general medical inpatients in Colombia. The three structured, quantitatively rated items in DDT-Pro represent the three core delirium domains. Results: High interrater reliability between physician and nurse (0.873) administrators, internal consistency (.0.81), and content validity were found. Compared with independent reference standard diagnosis with DSM-5 or the Delirium Rating Scale–Revised-98, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (global diagnostic ac-curacy) range was 93.8%296.3%. ROC analysis revealed the same cutoff score (#6) as that for the original study, with somewhat lower sensitivities of 88.0%290.0% and specificities of 85.3%281.2% (independent expert physician or nurse ratings). Even when rated by a trained expert phy-sician, the original version of the Confusion Assessment Method algorithm (CAM-A) performed moderately, with lower sensitivities (61.8%270.0%) than the DDT-Pro (88.0%2 100%) and somewhat higher specificities (84.8%295.3% versus 67.4%286.7%), with values depending on dementia status, reference standard, and rater type. Accuracies for the DDT-Pro and CAM-A were comparable (DDT-Pro: 83.0%2 87.5% versus CAM-A: 87.5%288.5%), although lower in the dementia subgroup, especially for CAM-A. However, these tools were significantly discordant, especially in negative cases, which suggests that they do not detect diagnosis of patients in the same way. Conclusions: The DDT-Pro had high validity and reliability in provisional delirium diagnosis by physicians and nonexpert clinicians, although further validation is warranted before widespread use can be recommended.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85089010193&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1176/appi.neuropsych.18110255
DO - 10.1176/appi.neuropsych.18110255
M3 - Artículo en revista científica indexada
C2 - 31662094
AN - SCOPUS:85089010193
SN - 0895-0172
VL - 32
SP - 213
EP - 226
JO - Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences
JF - Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences
IS - 3
ER -