4 AT Delirium Assessment Tool in Hospitalized Non-ICU Patients (≥65 Years): A Systematic Review on Validity and Reliability

Mohamed Ali Ahmed Hassabo, Abdulrhman Mohamed Ali Mohamed, Massab Bashir Khaira
{"title":"4 AT Delirium Assessment Tool in Hospitalized Non-ICU Patients (≥65 Years): A Systematic Review on Validity and Reliability","authors":"Mohamed Ali Ahmed Hassabo, Abdulrhman Mohamed Ali Mohamed, Massab Bashir Khaira","doi":"10.9734/jpri/2023/v35i237420","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Delirium is a frequent acute neuropsychiatric illness that affects attention, consciousness, and cognition. \nObjectives: The 4AT evaluation tool's validity and reliability in hospitalized non-ICU patients over 65 were assessed in this systematic study. \nMethod: PRISMA guidelines and the PICO framework were used, and relevant research papers were found utilizing several databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and ScienceDirect). The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to evaluate the study's quality. \nResults: 257 relevant publications were found, and only ten articles were selected based on inclusion criteria after the screening. Several studies were reported from various regions, including Asia, Europe, Canada, and Australia. Furthermore, studies found varying prevalence levels for 4AT and control groups, with the greatest for the 4AT group being 40.32%. Moreover, most research employed DSM-5 criteria, while some relied on CAM, DSM-4, and Psychiatric examination by qualified clinicians. Meanwhile, the sensitivity varied from 70% to 100%, and the specificity ranged from 71.6% to 99.2%. In contrast, other assessment tools, such as CAM and OBS, also demonstrated sensitivity and specificity. The main advantage was the time to complete the 4AT tool, which required 2-3 minutes, whereas the other tools took 3.6 and 12.46 minutes, respectively. The 4AT tool was a rapid, validated, easy patient assessment tool. In addition, it was found to improve delirium diagnosis. \nConclusion: The tool has been found to have good sensitivity and specificity, and it may be completed quickly by non-specialists.","PeriodicalId":16718,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Research International","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Research International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9734/jpri/2023/v35i237420","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Delirium is a frequent acute neuropsychiatric illness that affects attention, consciousness, and cognition. Objectives: The 4AT evaluation tool's validity and reliability in hospitalized non-ICU patients over 65 were assessed in this systematic study. Method: PRISMA guidelines and the PICO framework were used, and relevant research papers were found utilizing several databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and ScienceDirect). The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to evaluate the study's quality. Results: 257 relevant publications were found, and only ten articles were selected based on inclusion criteria after the screening. Several studies were reported from various regions, including Asia, Europe, Canada, and Australia. Furthermore, studies found varying prevalence levels for 4AT and control groups, with the greatest for the 4AT group being 40.32%. Moreover, most research employed DSM-5 criteria, while some relied on CAM, DSM-4, and Psychiatric examination by qualified clinicians. Meanwhile, the sensitivity varied from 70% to 100%, and the specificity ranged from 71.6% to 99.2%. In contrast, other assessment tools, such as CAM and OBS, also demonstrated sensitivity and specificity. The main advantage was the time to complete the 4AT tool, which required 2-3 minutes, whereas the other tools took 3.6 and 12.46 minutes, respectively. The 4AT tool was a rapid, validated, easy patient assessment tool. In addition, it was found to improve delirium diagnosis. Conclusion: The tool has been found to have good sensitivity and specificity, and it may be completed quickly by non-specialists.
住院非ICU患者(≥65岁)的4 AT谵妄评估工具:有效性和可靠性的系统评价
背景:谵妄是一种常见的影响注意力、意识和认知的急性神经精神疾病。目的:本系统研究评估了4AT评估工具在65岁以上住院非ICU患者中的有效性和可靠性。方法:使用PRISMA指南和PICO框架,并利用多个数据库(PubMed、Scopus、Web of Sciences和ScienceDirect)找到相关研究论文。使用混合方法评估工具来评估研究的质量。结果:共发现257篇相关文献,筛选后仅根据纳入标准筛选出10篇。来自亚洲、欧洲、加拿大和澳大利亚等不同地区的几项研究报告。此外,研究发现,4AT组和对照组的患病率不同,其中4AT组最高为40.32%。此外,大多数研究采用DSM-5标准,而一些研究依赖于合格临床医生的CAM、DSM-4和精神病检查。同时,敏感性从70%到100%不等,特异性从71.6%到99.2%不等。相比之下,其他评估工具,如CAM和OBS,也表现出敏感性和特异性。主要优点是完成4AT工具的时间,需要2-3分钟,而其他工具分别需要3.6和12.46分钟。4AT工具是一种快速、有效、简单的患者评估工具。此外,它被发现可以改善谵妄的诊断。结论:该工具具有良好的敏感性和特异性,非专家可以快速完成。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
735
×
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