Translation to serbian, transcultural adaptation and validation of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM- ICU)

Karlicic, Ivana Stasevic; Stasevic, Milena; Janković, Slobodan; Dejanović, Slavica Đukić; Dutina, Aleksandra; Grbić, Igor

doi:10.5530/ami.2016.2.15

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Table S3 presents the characteristics of the 29 studies. Twenty-three and 8 studies reported accuracy estimates for CAM-ICU (Adamis et al, 2012;Aljuaid et al, 2018;Barman et al, 2018;Boettger et al, 2018;Chanques et al, 2018;Chuang et al, 2007;Ely, Margolin, et al, 2001;Guenther et al, 2010;Gusmao-Flores et al, 2011;Heo et al, 2011;Karlicic et al, 2016;Koga et al, 2015;Lin et al, 2004;Luetz et al, 2010;Mitášová et al, 2012;Nishimura et al, 2016;Pipanmekaporn et al, 2014;Selim et al, 2018;van Eijk et al, 2011;van Eijk et al, 2009;Vreeswijk et al, 2009;Wang et al, 2013) and ICDSC (Barman et al, 2018;Bergeron et al, 2001;Boettger et al, 2018;Chanques et al, 2018;Gusmao-Flores et al, 2011;Kose, Bolu, Ozdemir, Acikel, & Hatipolu, 2016;Nishimura et al, 2016;van Eijk et al, 2009), respectively. Two studies applied Delirium Detection Score (DDS) (Luetz et al, 2010;Otter et al, 2005), one applied Cognitive Test for Delirium (CTD) alone (Hart et al, 1996), one applied Stanford Proxy Test for Delirium (S-PTD) alone (Alosaimi et al, 2018), one applied Neelon and Champagne Confusion Scale (NEECHAM) alone (Immers, Schuurmans, & Van De Bijl, 2005), and one applied Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (Nu-DESC) for delirium assessmen...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Performance of Delirium Assessment Tools in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Montgomery

Traynor

et al. 2020

Worldviews Ev Based Nurs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Critical care nurses are in the best position to detect and monitor delirium in critically ill patients. Therefore, an optimum delirium assessment tool with strong evidence should be identified with critical care nurses to perform in the daily assessment. Aim To evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of delirium assessment tools in diagnosing delirium in critically ill patients. Methods We searched five electronic databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and a Chinese database for eligible diagnostic studies published in English or Mandarin up to December 2018. This diagnostic test accuracy meta‐analysis was limited to studies in intensive care unit (ICU) settings, using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as a standard reference to test the accuracy of delirium assessment tools. Eligible studies were critically appraised by two investigators independently. The summary of evidence was conducted for pooling and comparing diagnostic accuracy by a bivariate random effects meta‐analysis model. The pooled sensitivities and specificities, summary receiver operating characteristic curve (sROC), the area under the curve (AUC), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated and plotted. The possibility of publication bias was assessed by Deeks’ funnel plot. Data Synthesis We identified and evaluated 23 and 8 articles focused on CAM‐ICU and ICDSC, respectively. The summary sensitivities of 0.85 and 0.87, and summary specificities of 0.95 and 0.91 were found for CAM‐ICU and ICDSC, respectively. The AUC of the CAM‐ICU was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94–0.98), with DOR at 99 (95% CI, 55–177). The AUC of the ICDSC was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92–0.96), and the DOR was 65 (95% CI, 27–153). Linking Evidence to Action CAM‐ICU demonstrated higher diagnostic test accuracy and is recommended as the optimal delirium assessment tool. However, the results should be interpreted with caution due to the between‐study heterogeneity of this diagnostic test accuracy meta‐analysis.

show abstract