Delirium diagnosis methodology used in research: A survey-based study

Karin Jane Neufeld, Archana Nelliot, Sharon K. Inouye, E. Wesley Ely, Oscar J Bienvenu, Hochang Benjamin Lee, Dale Needham

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective To describe methodology used to diagnose delirium in research studies evaluating delirium detection tools. Methods The authors used a survey to address reference rater methodology for delirium diagnosis, including rater characteristics, sources of patient information, and diagnostic process, completed via web or telephone interview according to respondent preference. Participants were authors of 39 studies included in three recent systematic reviews of delirium detection instruments in hospitalized patients. Results Authors from 85% (N = 33) of the 39 eligible studies responded to the survey. The median number of raters per study was 2.5 (interquartile range: 2-3); 79% were physicians. The raters' median duration of clinical experience with delirium diagnosis was 7 years (interquartile range: 4-10), with 5% having no prior clinical experience. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated in 70% of studies. Cognitive tests and delirium detection tools were used in the delirium reference rating process in 61% (N = 21) and 45% (N = 15) of studies, respectively, with 33% (N = 11) using both and 27% (N = 9) using neither. When patients were too drowsy or declined to participate in delirium evaluation, 70% of studies (N = 23) used all available information for delirium diagnosis, whereas 15% excluded such patients. Conclusion Significant variability exists in reference standard methods for delirium diagnosis in published research. Increasing standardization by documenting inter-rater reliability, using standardized cognitive and delirium detection tools, incorporating diagnostic expert consensus panels, and using all available information in patients declining or unable to participate with formal testing may help advance delirium research by increasing consistency of case detection and improving generalizability of research results.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1513-1521
Number of pages9
JournalAmerican Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry
Volume22
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2014

Fingerprint

Delirium
Research
Surveys and Questionnaires
Consensus
Interviews

Keywords

  • amnestic
  • cognitive disorders
  • data collection
  • Delirium
  • dementia
  • reference standards
  • research design

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Geriatrics and Gerontology

Cite this

Delirium diagnosis methodology used in research : A survey-based study. / Neufeld, Karin Jane; Nelliot, Archana; Inouye, Sharon K.; Ely, E. Wesley; Bienvenu, Oscar J; Lee, Hochang Benjamin; Needham, Dale.

In: American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, Vol. 22, No. 12, 01.12.2014, p. 1513-1521.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Neufeld, Karin Jane ; Nelliot, Archana ; Inouye, Sharon K. ; Ely, E. Wesley ; Bienvenu, Oscar J ; Lee, Hochang Benjamin ; Needham, Dale. / Delirium diagnosis methodology used in research : A survey-based study. In: American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 2014 ; Vol. 22, No. 12. pp. 1513-1521.
@article{997516b4caf84a43a7dee93190114787,
title = "Delirium diagnosis methodology used in research: A survey-based study",
abstract = "Objective To describe methodology used to diagnose delirium in research studies evaluating delirium detection tools. Methods The authors used a survey to address reference rater methodology for delirium diagnosis, including rater characteristics, sources of patient information, and diagnostic process, completed via web or telephone interview according to respondent preference. Participants were authors of 39 studies included in three recent systematic reviews of delirium detection instruments in hospitalized patients. Results Authors from 85{\%} (N = 33) of the 39 eligible studies responded to the survey. The median number of raters per study was 2.5 (interquartile range: 2-3); 79{\%} were physicians. The raters' median duration of clinical experience with delirium diagnosis was 7 years (interquartile range: 4-10), with 5{\%} having no prior clinical experience. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated in 70{\%} of studies. Cognitive tests and delirium detection tools were used in the delirium reference rating process in 61{\%} (N = 21) and 45{\%} (N = 15) of studies, respectively, with 33{\%} (N = 11) using both and 27{\%} (N = 9) using neither. When patients were too drowsy or declined to participate in delirium evaluation, 70{\%} of studies (N = 23) used all available information for delirium diagnosis, whereas 15{\%} excluded such patients. Conclusion Significant variability exists in reference standard methods for delirium diagnosis in published research. Increasing standardization by documenting inter-rater reliability, using standardized cognitive and delirium detection tools, incorporating diagnostic expert consensus panels, and using all available information in patients declining or unable to participate with formal testing may help advance delirium research by increasing consistency of case detection and improving generalizability of research results.",
keywords = "amnestic, cognitive disorders, data collection, Delirium, dementia, reference standards, research design",
author = "Neufeld, {Karin Jane} and Archana Nelliot and Inouye, {Sharon K.} and Ely, {E. Wesley} and Bienvenu, {Oscar J} and Lee, {Hochang Benjamin} and Dale Needham",
year = "2014",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jagp.2014.03.003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "1513--1521",
journal = "American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry",
issn = "1064-7481",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Delirium diagnosis methodology used in research

T2 - A survey-based study

AU - Neufeld, Karin Jane

AU - Nelliot, Archana

AU - Inouye, Sharon K.

AU - Ely, E. Wesley

AU - Bienvenu, Oscar J

AU - Lee, Hochang Benjamin

AU - Needham, Dale

PY - 2014/12/1

Y1 - 2014/12/1

N2 - Objective To describe methodology used to diagnose delirium in research studies evaluating delirium detection tools. Methods The authors used a survey to address reference rater methodology for delirium diagnosis, including rater characteristics, sources of patient information, and diagnostic process, completed via web or telephone interview according to respondent preference. Participants were authors of 39 studies included in three recent systematic reviews of delirium detection instruments in hospitalized patients. Results Authors from 85% (N = 33) of the 39 eligible studies responded to the survey. The median number of raters per study was 2.5 (interquartile range: 2-3); 79% were physicians. The raters' median duration of clinical experience with delirium diagnosis was 7 years (interquartile range: 4-10), with 5% having no prior clinical experience. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated in 70% of studies. Cognitive tests and delirium detection tools were used in the delirium reference rating process in 61% (N = 21) and 45% (N = 15) of studies, respectively, with 33% (N = 11) using both and 27% (N = 9) using neither. When patients were too drowsy or declined to participate in delirium evaluation, 70% of studies (N = 23) used all available information for delirium diagnosis, whereas 15% excluded such patients. Conclusion Significant variability exists in reference standard methods for delirium diagnosis in published research. Increasing standardization by documenting inter-rater reliability, using standardized cognitive and delirium detection tools, incorporating diagnostic expert consensus panels, and using all available information in patients declining or unable to participate with formal testing may help advance delirium research by increasing consistency of case detection and improving generalizability of research results.

AB - Objective To describe methodology used to diagnose delirium in research studies evaluating delirium detection tools. Methods The authors used a survey to address reference rater methodology for delirium diagnosis, including rater characteristics, sources of patient information, and diagnostic process, completed via web or telephone interview according to respondent preference. Participants were authors of 39 studies included in three recent systematic reviews of delirium detection instruments in hospitalized patients. Results Authors from 85% (N = 33) of the 39 eligible studies responded to the survey. The median number of raters per study was 2.5 (interquartile range: 2-3); 79% were physicians. The raters' median duration of clinical experience with delirium diagnosis was 7 years (interquartile range: 4-10), with 5% having no prior clinical experience. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated in 70% of studies. Cognitive tests and delirium detection tools were used in the delirium reference rating process in 61% (N = 21) and 45% (N = 15) of studies, respectively, with 33% (N = 11) using both and 27% (N = 9) using neither. When patients were too drowsy or declined to participate in delirium evaluation, 70% of studies (N = 23) used all available information for delirium diagnosis, whereas 15% excluded such patients. Conclusion Significant variability exists in reference standard methods for delirium diagnosis in published research. Increasing standardization by documenting inter-rater reliability, using standardized cognitive and delirium detection tools, incorporating diagnostic expert consensus panels, and using all available information in patients declining or unable to participate with formal testing may help advance delirium research by increasing consistency of case detection and improving generalizability of research results.

KW - amnestic

KW - cognitive disorders

KW - data collection

KW - Delirium

KW - dementia

KW - reference standards

KW - research design

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928212596&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928212596&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jagp.2014.03.003

DO - 10.1016/j.jagp.2014.03.003

M3 - Article

C2 - 24745562

AN - SCOPUS:84928212596

VL - 22

SP - 1513

EP - 1521

JO - American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry

JF - American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry

SN - 1064-7481

IS - 12

ER -