2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2011.05.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of CAM-ICU and ICDSC for the detection of delirium in critically ill patients focusing on relevant clinical outcomes

Abstract: The findings of our study suggest that the CAM-ICU is better predictor of outcome when compared with ICDSC.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
42
0
6

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 77 publications
(56 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
5
42
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…, CAM-ICU vs. ICDSC) given evidence suggesting that the sensitivity and specificity of these two instruments may differ (5, 26, 27); 2) the predominate ICU service that the patient was admitted to (i.e., medical versus surgical); 3) the presence of delirium at the time of enrollment in some or all patients versus the presence of delirium in none; 4) patients at low risk for mortality (≤5%) versus those at high risk for mortality (≥10%); 5) patients administered a pharmacological intervention versus those administered a non-pharmacological intervention; and 6) among patients administered a pharmacological intervention, those administered antipsychotic versus an alpha-2 receptor agonist (e.g. , clonidine or dexmedetomidine) or an acetylcholinesterate inhibitor (e.g., rivastigmine).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…, CAM-ICU vs. ICDSC) given evidence suggesting that the sensitivity and specificity of these two instruments may differ (5, 26, 27); 2) the predominate ICU service that the patient was admitted to (i.e., medical versus surgical); 3) the presence of delirium at the time of enrollment in some or all patients versus the presence of delirium in none; 4) patients at low risk for mortality (≤5%) versus those at high risk for mortality (≥10%); 5) patients administered a pharmacological intervention versus those administered a non-pharmacological intervention; and 6) among patients administered a pharmacological intervention, those administered antipsychotic versus an alpha-2 receptor agonist (e.g. , clonidine or dexmedetomidine) or an acetylcholinesterate inhibitor (e.g., rivastigmine).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, this drawback (of ICDSC) may affect the outcome of the present results. However, a recent study by Tomasi et al (2012), which is a singlecentre study, showed relatively low delirium rates assessed by ICDSC, implying that these current results must be confirmed by multicenter studies, including larger populations. Fourthly, only cognitive screening test (MMSE) was used in the present study.…”
Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning
confidence: 59%
“…Secondly, the study was based on a small sample size and was only undertaken at one academic tertiary medical centre in Japan. Thirdly, recent studies suggest that the CAM-ICU is a better predictor of outcomes than the ICDSC (Tomasi et al, 2012) for delirium in ICU patients as there might be high rates of false positives with the ICDSC (Gusmao-Flores et al, 2012). Thus, this drawback (of ICDSC) may affect the outcome of the present results.…”
Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning
confidence: 75%
“…A total ICSDC Score  4 has a 99% sensitivity correlation for a psychiatric diagnosis of delirium [24]. However, CAM-ICU is a stronger predictor of outcome compared to ICDSC [26].…”
Section: Diagnosismentioning
confidence: 99%