CAM-ICU和ICDSC评估非插管重症监护患者谵妄的比较

Q3 Nursing
Hana Locihová, K. Axmann
{"title":"CAM-ICU和ICDSC评估非插管重症监护患者谵妄的比较","authors":"Hana Locihová, K. Axmann","doi":"10.15452/cejnm.2021.12.0033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: The study compared two instruments for detecting delirium, the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) as a reference method. Design: Prospective observational study. Methods: The study included 126 consecutive patients staying in the intensive care unit (ICU) for more than 24 hours. The diagnostic properties of both questionnaires and agreement between them were studied and compared. Additionally, the two tests were used to assess the relationship between selected patient parameters and the presence of delirium. Results: There was a high level of agreement between the CAM-ICU and ICDSC, as expressed by Cohen’s κ of 0.829 (95% CI: 0.821–0.838). Cronbach’s α assessing the internal consistency of a Czech version of the CAM-ICU and ICDSC was 0.903 and 0.865, respectively. The CAM-ICU had 85.5% sensitivity (95% CI: 84.6–91.8) and 94.1% specificity (95% CI: 92.4–95.5); the ICDSC (cut-off ≥ 4) had 90.6% sensitivity (95% CI: 87.0–93.5) and 89.0% specificity (95% CI: 86.8–91.0). Conclusion: Both compared diagnostic instruments, the CAM-ICU and ICDSC, appear to be adequate and usable. When compared with the CAM-ICU as a reference method, the ICDSC showed similar results and a good level","PeriodicalId":38129,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Nursing and Midwifery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the CAM-ICU and ICDSC for assessing delirium in non-intubated intensive care patients\",\"authors\":\"Hana Locihová, K. Axmann\",\"doi\":\"10.15452/cejnm.2021.12.0033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim: The study compared two instruments for detecting delirium, the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) as a reference method. Design: Prospective observational study. Methods: The study included 126 consecutive patients staying in the intensive care unit (ICU) for more than 24 hours. The diagnostic properties of both questionnaires and agreement between them were studied and compared. Additionally, the two tests were used to assess the relationship between selected patient parameters and the presence of delirium. Results: There was a high level of agreement between the CAM-ICU and ICDSC, as expressed by Cohen’s κ of 0.829 (95% CI: 0.821–0.838). Cronbach’s α assessing the internal consistency of a Czech version of the CAM-ICU and ICDSC was 0.903 and 0.865, respectively. The CAM-ICU had 85.5% sensitivity (95% CI: 84.6–91.8) and 94.1% specificity (95% CI: 92.4–95.5); the ICDSC (cut-off ≥ 4) had 90.6% sensitivity (95% CI: 87.0–93.5) and 89.0% specificity (95% CI: 86.8–91.0). Conclusion: Both compared diagnostic instruments, the CAM-ICU and ICDSC, appear to be adequate and usable. When compared with the CAM-ICU as a reference method, the ICDSC showed similar results and a good level\",\"PeriodicalId\":38129,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Central European Journal of Nursing and Midwifery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Central European Journal of Nursing and Midwifery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15452/cejnm.2021.12.0033\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Journal of Nursing and Midwifery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15452/cejnm.2021.12.0033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较两种检测谵妄的仪器,重症监护谵妄筛查清单(ICDSC)和重症监护病房混淆评估方法(CAM-ICU)作为参考方法。设计:前瞻性观察研究。方法:研究纳入126例连续在重症监护病房(ICU)住院24小时以上的患者。对两份问卷的诊断特性及一致性进行了研究比较。此外,这两项测试用于评估选定的患者参数与谵妄存在之间的关系。结果:CAM-ICU与ICDSC之间存在高度一致性,Cohen 's κ为0.829 (95% CI: 0.821-0.838)。评价捷克版CAM-ICU和ICDSC内部一致性的Cronbach’s α分别为0.903和0.865。CAM-ICU的敏感性为85.5% (95% CI: 84.6 ~ 91.8),特异性为94.1% (95% CI: 92.4 ~ 95.5);ICDSC(截止值≥4)的敏感性为90.6% (95% CI: 87.0 ~ 93.5),特异性为89.0% (95% CI: 87.8 ~ 91.0)。结论:CAM-ICU和ICDSC两种比较诊断仪器都是足够的和可用的。ICDSC与CAM-ICU作为参考方法比较,结果相似,处于较好的水平
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing the CAM-ICU and ICDSC for assessing delirium in non-intubated intensive care patients
Aim: The study compared two instruments for detecting delirium, the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) as a reference method. Design: Prospective observational study. Methods: The study included 126 consecutive patients staying in the intensive care unit (ICU) for more than 24 hours. The diagnostic properties of both questionnaires and agreement between them were studied and compared. Additionally, the two tests were used to assess the relationship between selected patient parameters and the presence of delirium. Results: There was a high level of agreement between the CAM-ICU and ICDSC, as expressed by Cohen’s κ of 0.829 (95% CI: 0.821–0.838). Cronbach’s α assessing the internal consistency of a Czech version of the CAM-ICU and ICDSC was 0.903 and 0.865, respectively. The CAM-ICU had 85.5% sensitivity (95% CI: 84.6–91.8) and 94.1% specificity (95% CI: 92.4–95.5); the ICDSC (cut-off ≥ 4) had 90.6% sensitivity (95% CI: 87.0–93.5) and 89.0% specificity (95% CI: 86.8–91.0). Conclusion: Both compared diagnostic instruments, the CAM-ICU and ICDSC, appear to be adequate and usable. When compared with the CAM-ICU as a reference method, the ICDSC showed similar results and a good level
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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