↓ Skip to main content

The 2014 updated version of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit compared to the 5th version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and other current…

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
60 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
The 2014 updated version of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit compared to the 5th version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and other current methods used by intensivists
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13613-018-0377-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gérald Chanques, E. Wesley Ely, Océane Garnier, Fanny Perrigault, Anaïs Eloi, Julie Carr, Christine M. Rowan, Albert Prades, Audrey de Jong, Sylvie Moritz-Gasser, Nicolas Molinari, Samir Jaber

Abstract

One third of patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) will develop delirium. However, delirium is under-recognized by bedside clinicians without the use of delirium screening tools, such as the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) or the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU). The CAM-ICU was updated in 2014 to improve its use by clinicians throughout the world. It has never been validated compared to the new reference standard, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th version (DSM-5). We made a prospective psychometric study in a 16-bed medical-surgical ICU of a French academic hospital, to measure the diagnostic performance of the 2014 updated CAM-ICU compared to the DSM-5 as the reference standard. We included consecutive adult patients with a Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) ≥ -3, without preexisting cognitive disorders, psychosis or cerebral injury. Delirium was independently assessed by neuropsychological experts using an operationalized approach to DSM-5, by investigators using the CAM-ICU and the ICDSC, by bedside clinicians and by ICU patients. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated considering neuropsychologist DSM-5 assessments as the reference standard (primary endpoint). CAM-ICU inter-observer agreement, as well as that between delirium diagnosis methods and the reference standard, was summarized using κ coefficients, which were subsequently compared using the Z-test. Delirium was diagnosed by experts in 38% of the 108 patients included for analysis. The CAM-ICU had a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 100%, a positive predictive value of 100% and a negative predictive value of 91%. Compared to the reference standard, the CAM-ICU had a significantly (p < 0.05) higher agreement (κ = 0.86 ± 0.05) than the physicians,' residents' and nurses' diagnoses (κ = 0.65 ± 0.09; 0.63 ± 0.09; 0.61 ± 0.09, respectively), as well as the patient's own impression of feeling delirious (κ = 0.02 ± 0.11). Differences between the ICDSC (κ = 0.69 ± 0.07) and CAM-ICU were not significant (p = 0.054). The CAM-ICU demonstrated a high reliability for inter-observer agreement (κ = 0.87 ± 0.06). The 2014 updated version of the CAM-ICU is valid according to DSM-5 criteria and reliable regarding inter-observer agreement in a research setting. Delirium remains under-recognized by bedside clinicians.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 60 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 15%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 8 9%
Other 6 7%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 23 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 22 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 24%
Unspecified 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 29 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 April 2018.
All research outputs
#1,149,955
of 25,208,845 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#132
of 1,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,390
of 337,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#3
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,208,845 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,174 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,061 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.