Validation of the delirium diagnostic tool-provisional (DDT-Pro) in geriatric medical inpatients with diagnostic permutations of the 3Ds with and without delirium

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
María Botero Urrea , Maria Carolina González , María Margarita Villa García , Marcela Alviz Núñez , Juan D. Velásquez-Tirado , María V. Ocampo , Paula T. Trzepacz , José G. Franco
{"title":"Validation of the delirium diagnostic tool-provisional (DDT-Pro) in geriatric medical inpatients with diagnostic permutations of the 3Ds with and without delirium","authors":"María Botero Urrea ,&nbsp;Maria Carolina González ,&nbsp;María Margarita Villa García ,&nbsp;Marcela Alviz Núñez ,&nbsp;Juan D. Velásquez-Tirado ,&nbsp;María V. Ocampo ,&nbsp;Paula T. Trzepacz ,&nbsp;José G. Franco","doi":"10.1016/j.jpsychores.2024.111880","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Validations of brief delirium tools have not included analysis of psychiatric disorders comorbidities or control groups. We validated the Delirium Diagnostic Tool-Provisional (DDT-Pro) in 422 geriatric inpatients with high incidence of depression and/or dementia.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Cross-sectional study using two delirium reference standards, DSM-5-TR and Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R98). We assessed concurrent and construct DDT-Pro validity too.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>There were 117 (27.7%) delirium cases using DDT-Pro, 104 (24.6%) per DSM-5-TR and 93 (22.0%) per DRS-R98; 133 patients (31.5%) had depression and 105 (24.9%) dementia, some comorbid with delirium. DDT-Pro accuracy (AUC under ROC curve) ranges were 88.3–95.9% vs DSM-5-TR and 92.7–95.0% vs DRS-R98 for whole sample and four diagnostic groups, without statistical differences. DDT-Pro ≤6 had the most balanced sensitivity-specificity for delirium diagnosis against both DSM-5-TR and DRS-R98 with similar specificity but higher sensitivity for DRS-R98 than DSM-5-TR delirium, with the highest values in patients with depression and dementia (≥92% sensitivity, ≥81% specificity). Positive and negative likelihood ratios support diagnostic strength. Concurrent validity was high reflected by significant correlations (<em>p</em> &lt; 0.001) of DDT-Pro total and item scores with DRS-R98 and Delirium Frontal Index scores, highest in groups with comorbid depression and/or dementia. The DDT-Pro represented a single construct for delirium demonstrated by one factor with high item loadings and high internal consistency reliability of its items.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The DDT-Pro demonstrated strong performance metrics in general hospital elderly inpatients with preexisting depression and/or dementia, which is unique among brief delirium tools. Its optimized cutoff score was the same as in other populations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50074,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Psychosomatic Research","volume":"185 ","pages":"Article 111880"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Psychosomatic Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022399924002927","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Validations of brief delirium tools have not included analysis of psychiatric disorders comorbidities or control groups. We validated the Delirium Diagnostic Tool-Provisional (DDT-Pro) in 422 geriatric inpatients with high incidence of depression and/or dementia.

Methods

Cross-sectional study using two delirium reference standards, DSM-5-TR and Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R98). We assessed concurrent and construct DDT-Pro validity too.

Results

There were 117 (27.7%) delirium cases using DDT-Pro, 104 (24.6%) per DSM-5-TR and 93 (22.0%) per DRS-R98; 133 patients (31.5%) had depression and 105 (24.9%) dementia, some comorbid with delirium. DDT-Pro accuracy (AUC under ROC curve) ranges were 88.3–95.9% vs DSM-5-TR and 92.7–95.0% vs DRS-R98 for whole sample and four diagnostic groups, without statistical differences. DDT-Pro ≤6 had the most balanced sensitivity-specificity for delirium diagnosis against both DSM-5-TR and DRS-R98 with similar specificity but higher sensitivity for DRS-R98 than DSM-5-TR delirium, with the highest values in patients with depression and dementia (≥92% sensitivity, ≥81% specificity). Positive and negative likelihood ratios support diagnostic strength. Concurrent validity was high reflected by significant correlations (p < 0.001) of DDT-Pro total and item scores with DRS-R98 and Delirium Frontal Index scores, highest in groups with comorbid depression and/or dementia. The DDT-Pro represented a single construct for delirium demonstrated by one factor with high item loadings and high internal consistency reliability of its items.

Conclusions

The DDT-Pro demonstrated strong performance metrics in general hospital elderly inpatients with preexisting depression and/or dementia, which is unique among brief delirium tools. Its optimized cutoff score was the same as in other populations.

Abstract Image

在老年内科住院病人中验证谵妄诊断工具临时版(DDT-Pro),对有谵妄和无谵妄的 3D 进行诊断排列。
目的:简易谵妄工具的验证并不包括对精神疾病合并症或对照组的分析。我们在 422 名抑郁症和/或痴呆症发病率较高的老年住院患者中验证了谵妄诊断工具临时版(DDT-Pro):方法:采用两种谵妄参考标准(DSM-5-TR 和谵妄评分量表-修订版-98(DRS-R98))进行横断面研究。我们还评估了 DDT-Pro 的并发有效性和结构有效性:使用 DDT-Pro 的谵妄病例为 117 例(27.7%),DSM-5-TR 为 104 例(24.6%),DRS-R98 为 93 例(22.0%);133 名患者(31.5%)患有抑郁症,105 名患者(24.9%)患有痴呆症,其中一些患者合并有谵妄。整个样本和四个诊断组的 DDT-Pro 与 DSM-5-TR 和 DRS-R98 相比,准确率(ROC 曲线下的 AUC)范围分别为 88.3-95.9%和 92.7-95.0%,无统计学差异。与DSM-5-TR和DRS-R98相比,DDT-Pro ≤6对谵妄诊断的敏感性-特异性最为均衡,特异性相似,但DRS-R98的敏感性高于DSM-5-TR谵妄,其中抑郁症和痴呆症患者的敏感性和特异性值最高(敏感性≥92%,特异性≥81%)。正负似然比支持诊断强度。通过显著的相关性(p 结论)反映出并发有效性很高:DDT-Pro 在综合医院的老年住院患者中表现出了很强的性能指标,这在简短谵妄工具中是独一无二的。其优化截断分数与其他人群相同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Journal of Psychosomatic Research 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
6.40%
发文量
314
审稿时长
6.2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Psychosomatic Research is a multidisciplinary research journal covering all aspects of the relationships between psychology and medicine. The scope is broad and ranges from basic human biological and psychological research to evaluations of treatment and services. Papers will normally be concerned with illness or patients rather than studies of healthy populations. Studies concerning special populations, such as the elderly and children and adolescents, are welcome. In addition to peer-reviewed original papers, the journal publishes editorials, reviews, and other papers related to the journal''s aims.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信