2007
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-007-0920-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of the confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU) with the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) for delirium in critical care patients gives high agreement rate(s)

Abstract: It is concluded from the present investigation that the two scoring methods represent good diagnostic tools with high agreement rates in critical ill ICU patients.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
73
0
7

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 119 publications
(81 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
1
73
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…Among assessable patients at 14 days, those who were ever delirious had a higher (worse) median NIHSS (11 [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] vs. 3 [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]; P ¼ 0.002) and a higher (worse) median mRS (5 [4][5] vs. 4 [2][3][4][5]; P ¼ 0.003). In multivariate models, being ever delirious was associated with increased odds of poor outcome (mRS >3 vs. mRS <2) at 28 days (odds ratio [OR], 8.7; 95% CI, 1.4-52.5; P ¼ 0.018) after correction for admission NIHSS (1.5 per point; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9; P ¼ 0.003) and age (OR, 1.06 per year; 95% CI, 1.006-1.1; P ¼ 0.03).…”
Section: Functional Outcomes Among Assessable Patientsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Among assessable patients at 14 days, those who were ever delirious had a higher (worse) median NIHSS (11 [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] vs. 3 [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]; P ¼ 0.002) and a higher (worse) median mRS (5 [4][5] vs. 4 [2][3][4][5]; P ¼ 0.003). In multivariate models, being ever delirious was associated with increased odds of poor outcome (mRS >3 vs. mRS <2) at 28 days (odds ratio [OR], 8.7; 95% CI, 1.4-52.5; P ¼ 0.018) after correction for admission NIHSS (1.5 per point; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9; P ¼ 0.003) and age (OR, 1.06 per year; 95% CI, 1.006-1.1; P ¼ 0.03).…”
Section: Functional Outcomes Among Assessable Patientsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) is a commonly used and well-validated instrument (11)(12)(13)(14) that could be used to track the presence of absence or such a symptom complex in the neuro-ICU patient population (7,10,15). Some distinguish between hyperactive (agitated) delirium and hypoactive delirium ("encephalopathy") depending on the level of arousal.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…En los pacientes de unidad de cuidados intensivos (UCI) los instrumentos diagnósticos son más recientes 51 , siendo el más estudiado el CAM ICU [52][53][54][55][56][57] . Pese a los resultados asociados al DPO, no existe evidencia sólida que evalúe el impacto del tamizaje en los pacientes hospitalizados, concluyendo que el beneficio neto de su uso estaría definido por la edad, comorbilidades y severidad de la enfermedad actual 58 .…”
Section: Métodos Diagnósticosunclassified
“…Flere studier har sammenliknet verktøy som kan avdekke delirium hos intensivpasienten (8, 13,14 (20). Basert på dette valgte vi å bruke retningslinjen «Delirium: diagnosis, prevention and management» (11).…”
Section: Introduksjonunclassified