Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Dec;15(6):675-683.
doi: 10.1017/S1478951516001176. Epub 2017 Feb 8.

Delirium in the intensive care setting: A reevaluation of the validity of the CAM-ICU and ICDSC versus the DSM-IV-TR in determining a diagnosis of delirium as part of the daily clinical routine

Affiliations

Delirium in the intensive care setting: A reevaluation of the validity of the CAM-ICU and ICDSC versus the DSM-IV-TR in determining a diagnosis of delirium as part of the daily clinical routine

Soenke Boettger et al. Palliat Support Care. 2017 Dec.

Abstract

Background: In the intensive care setting, delirium is a common occurrence that comes with subsequent adversities. Therefore, several instruments have been developed to screen for and detect delirium. Their validity and psychometric properties, however, remain controversial.

Method: In this prospective cohort study, the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) were evaluated versus the DSM-IV-TR in the diagnosis of delirium with respect to their validity and psychometric properties.

Results: Out of some 289 patients, 210 with matching CAM-ICU, ICDSC, and DSM-IV-TR diagnoses were included. Between the scales, the prevalence of delirium ranged from 23.3% with the CAM-ICU, to 30.5% with the ICDSC, to 43.8% with the DSM-IV-TR criteria. The CAM-ICU showed only moderate concurrent validity (Cohen's κ = 0.44) and sensitivity (50%), but high specificity (95%). The ICDSC also reached moderate agreement (Cohen's κ = 0.60) and sensitivity (63%) while being very specific (95%). Between the CAM-ICU and the ICDSC, the concurrent validity was again only moderate (Cohen's κ = 0.56); however, the ICDSC yielded higher sensitivity and specificity (78 and 83%, respectively).

Significance of results: In the daily clinical routine, neither the CAM-ICU nor the ICDSC, common tools used in screening and detecting delirium in the intensive care setting, reached sufficient concurrent validity; nor did they outperform the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria with respect to sensitivity or positive prediction, but they were very specific. Thus, the non-prediction by the CAM-ICU or ICDSC did not refute the presence of delirium. Between the CAM-ICU and ICDSC, the ICDSC proved to be the more accurate instrument.

Keywords: Concurrent validity; Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Units (CAM–ICU); DSM–IV–TR; Delirium; Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC); Intensive care unit.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

LinkOut - more resources