Delirium classification by the diagnostic and statistical manual – a moving target

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 881-882 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin J. Neufeld
Keyword(s):  
Rating Scale ◽  
Confusion Assessment Method ◽  
Assessment Method ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Diagnostic Systems ◽  
Delirium Assessment ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Medical Inpatients ◽  
Dsm Iv

The following paper, entitled “A Comparison of Delirium Diagnosis in Elderly Medical Inpatients using the CAM, DRS-R98, DSM-IV and DSM-5 Criteria” by Adamis and colleagues, reports the results of a single delirium assessment of 200 medical inpatients, aged 70 years and older. The aim was to compare the prevalence of delirium using two different diagnostic classification systems (DSM-5 and DSM-IV) and two commonly used research tools (Confusion Assessment Method and the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised ‘98). This editorial focuses on the comparison of the two versions of the DSM. The authors conclude that, while both diagnostic systems identify a core concept of delirium, the DSM-IV criteria are the most inclusive of the four approaches and the DSM-5, the most restrictive, identifying a prevalence of 19.5% and 13%, respectively in this sample. Furthermore, they conclude that these two systems do not appear to detect the same patients: only 14 of 26 (54%) individuals identified as delirious by the more exclusive DSM-5 criteria were also identified as such by DSM-IV.

A comparison of delirium diagnosis in elderly medical inpatients using the CAM, DRS-R98, DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 883-889 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dimitrios Adamis ◽  
Siobhan Rooney ◽  
David Meagher ◽  
Owen Mulligan ◽  
Geraldine McCarthy
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Method ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Case Identification ◽  
Significant Agreement ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Detailed Evaluation ◽  
Medical Inpatients ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Medical Teams

ABSTRACTBackground:The recently published DSM-5 criteria for delirium may lead to different case identification and rates of delirium than previous classifications. The aims of this study are to determine how the new DSM-5 criteria compare with DSM-IV in identification of delirium in elderly medical inpatients and to investigate the agreement between different methods, using CAM, DRS-R98, DSM-IV, and DSM-5 criteria.Methods:Prospective, observational study of elderly patients aged 70+ admitted under the acute medical teams in a regional general hospital. Each participant was assessed within 3 days of admission using the DSM-5, and DSM-IV criteria plus the DRS-R98, and CAM scales.Results:We assessed 200 patients [mean age 81.1±6.5; 50% female; pre-existing cognitive impairment in 63%]. The prevalence rates of delirium for each diagnostic method were: 13.0% (n = 26) for DSM-5; 19.5% (n = 39) for DSM-IV; 13.5% (n = 27) for DRS-R98 and 17.0%, (n = 34) for CAM. Using tetrachoric correlation coefficients the agreement between DSM-5 and DSM-IV was statistically significant (ρtetr = 0.64, SE = 0.1, p < 0.0001). Similar significant agreement was found between the four methods.Conclusions:DSM-IV is the most inclusive diagnostic method for delirium, while DSM-5 is the most restrictive. In addition, these classification systems identify different cases of delirium. This could have clinical, financial, and research implications. However, both classification systems have significant agreement in the identification of the same concept (delirium). Clarity of diagnosis is required for classification but also further research considering the relevance in predicting outcomes can allow for more detailed evaluation of the DSM-5 criteria.

A comparison of outcomes according to different diagnostic systems for delirium (DSM-5, DSM-IV, CAM, and DRS-R98)

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 591-596 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dimitrios Adamis ◽  
David Meagher ◽  
Siobhan Rooney ◽  
Owen Mulligan ◽  
Geraldine McCarthy
Keyword(s):  
Care Home ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Diagnostic Systems ◽  
Prospective Longitudinal Study ◽  
Cognitive Improvement ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Medical Wards ◽  
Prospective Longitudinal

ABSTRACTStudies indicate that DSM-5 criteria for delirium are relatively restrictive, and identify different cases of delirium compared with previous systems. We evaluate four outcomes of delirium (mortality, length of hospital stay, institutionalization, and cognitive improvement) in relation to delirium defined by different DSM classification systems.Prospective, longitudinal study of patients aged 70+ admitted to medical wards of a general hospital. Participants were assessed up to a maximum of four times during two weeks, using DSM-5 and DSM-IV criteria, DRS-R98 and CAM scales as proxies for DSM III-R and DSM III.Of the 200 assessed patients (mean age 81.1, SD = 6.5; and 50% female) during hospitalization, delirium was identified in 41 (20.5%) using DSM-5, 45 (22.5%) according to DSM-IV, 46 (23%) with CAM positive, and 37 (18.5%) with DRS-R98 severity score >15. Mortality was significantly associated with delirium according to any classification system, but those identified with DSM-5 were at greater risk. Length of stay was significantly longer for those with DSM-IV delirium. Discharge to a care home was associated only with DRS-R98 defined delirium. Cognitive improvement was only associated with CAM and DSM-IV. Different classification systems for delirium identify populations with different outcomes.

scholarly journals Validation of the Malay 3-Minute Diagnostic Interview for Confusion Assessment Method in a surgical population

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 721-729
Author(s):  
Pui San Loh ◽  
Yi Zhe Chin ◽  
Jia Wen Lee ◽  
Angelvene Wong ◽  
Marzida Mansor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Confusion Assessment Method ◽  
Assessment Method ◽  
Diagnostic Interview ◽  
Surgical Patients ◽  
Diagnostic Study ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Confusion Assessment ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Diagnostic Characteristics ◽  
Postoperative Setting

Background: Delirium is a common postoperative complication among elderly which can be easily missed and leads to poorer outcomes. The 3-Minute Diagnostic Assessment for Confusion Assessment Method (3D-CAM) is a short and structured tool to assess delirium by healthcare staff with minimal training. This study aimed to validate the translated Malay 3D-CAM (M3D-CAM) in postoperative surgical patients. Methods: In this prospective diagnostic study, 3D-CAM was translated into Malay and two assessors (1 and 2) independently interviewed surgical patients above 65 years old with M3D-CAM on postoperative day one. A psychiatrist diagnosed postoperative delirium according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th Edition (DSM-5) as the reference standard. The sequence of examinations was done randomly with all results blinded to each other and the diagnostic characteristics of M3D-CAM analysed with k coefficient used to evaluate reliability. Results: A total of 427 patients were screened, 111 recruited with a final 100 paired interviews completed. Their mean age was 72 (± 6) years old. Two-thirds of patients were proficient in Malay and English, therefore assessed in both 3D-CAM and M3D-CAM. Delirium was identified in 11% and 12% of patients by assessors 1 and 2 respectively while compared to DSM-5, M3D-CAM had 80% and 90% sensitivity with 96.7% and 97.7% specificity. M3D-CAM had excellent inter-rater reliability (85%), substantial parallel reliability (70%) and features 1 and 3 with substantial parallel agreement (p <0.001). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that M3D-CAM is reliable and valid for delirium assessment in the postoperative setting.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of ginkgo preparations for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e020434
Author(s):  
Sufei He ◽  
Miao Wang ◽  
Jinhua Si ◽  
Tianyi Zhang ◽  
Hong Cui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Hyperactivity Disorder ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Icd 10 ◽  
Dsm Iv

IntroductionAttention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated childhood psychiatric disorders. The analogous diagnosis adopted in Europe is hyperkinetic disorder, which is defined in the WHO’s International Classification of Diseases 10th edition (ICD-10). Hyperkinetic disorder includes more severe conditions. Ginkgo preparations are used in the treatment of ADHD. The present study will assess the efficacy and safety of ginkgo preparations in the treatment of ADHD in the currently published literature.Materials and methodsAll prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs) will be included in this systematic review. Patients diagnosed with ADHD according to American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition (DSM-IV), Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5), ICD-10 or Chinese Classification and Diagnosis of Mental Diseases third edition (CMDD) will be included. A comprehensive search for RCTs to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerance of ginkgo preparations will be performed. The primary outcomes are the ADHD Rating Scale-IV and Revised Conners’ Parent Rating Scale. The secondary outcomes are quality of life evaluated by the KINDL scale, adverse effects/events, Conners’ Teacher Rating Scale, Strengths and Weaknesses of ADHD Symptoms and Normal Behaviour Scale and Fremdbeurteilungsbogen für Hyperkinetische Störungen. Exclusion criteria are the following: (1) case reports, not randomised trial, non-comparative studies and (2) patients who were not diagnosed based on DSM-IV, DSM-5, ICD-10 or CMDD. The following databases will be searched from their inception until January 2018: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, China Biology Medicine Disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Wanfang Database and Chinese Scientific Journals Database. Two authors will independently perform the study selection, extract the data and assess the study quality and risk of bias.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review does not require ethics approval. It will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017077190.

scholarly journals Frequency of delirium and subsyndromal delirium in an adult acute hospital population

2014 ◽  
Vol 205 (6) ◽  
pp. 478-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Meagher ◽  
N. O'Regan ◽  
D. Ryan ◽  
W. Connolly ◽  
E. Boland ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Hospital ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Confusion Assessment Method ◽  
Assessment Method ◽  
Acute Hospital ◽  
Point Prevalence ◽  
Point Prevalence Study ◽  
Subsyndromal Delirium ◽  
Confusion Assessment ◽  
Dsm Iv

BackgroundThe frequency of full syndromal and subsyndromal delirium is understudied.AimsWe conducted a point prevalence study in a general hospital.MethodPossible delirium identified by testing for inattention was evaluated regarding delirium status (full/subsyndromal delirium) using categorical (Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), DSM-IV) and dimensional (Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R98) scores) methods.ResultsIn total 162 of 311 patients (52%) screened positive for inattention. Delirium was diagnosed in 55 patients (17.7%) using DSM-IV, 52 (16.7%) using CAM and 58 (18.6%) using DRS-R98⩾12 with concordance for 38 (12.2%) individuals. Subsyndromal delirium was identified in 24 patients (7.7%) using a DRS-R98 score of 7–11 and 41 (13.2%) using 2/4 CAM criteria. Subsyndromal delirium with inattention (v. without) had greater disturbance of multiple delirium symptoms.ConclusionsThe point prevalence of delirium and subsyndromal delirium was 25%. There was modest concordance between DRS-R98, DSM-IV and CAM delirium diagnoses. Inattention should be central to subsyndromal delirium definitions.

scholarly journals A Tunisian version of the Confusion Assessment Method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU): translation and validation

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Imen Ben Saida ◽  
Saiid Kortli ◽  
Badii Amamou ◽  
Nawres Kacem ◽  
Mariem Ghardallou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Kappa Statistic ◽  
Confusion Assessment Method ◽  
Assessment Method ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Rater Reliability ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Poor Outcomes

Abstract Background Delirium is common in critically ill patients and is associated with poor outcomes. In Tunisia, it remains however underdiagnosed, lacking a validated screening tool. The CAM-ICU is one of the most commonly used tools for detecting delirium in ICUs. The aim of the present study was to translate and validate a Tunisian version of the CAM-ICU. Methods A forward and backward translation was performed according to the guidelines suggested by the translation and cultural adaptation group. For the validation and inter-rater reliability assessment of the Tunisian CAM-ICU, two trained intensivists independently evaluated delirium in ICU patients admitted between October 2017 and June 2018. The results were compared with the reference evaluation carried out by a psychiatrist using the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). The inter-rater reliability was calculated using the kappa statistic. Results The related material of the Tunisian translated version of the CAM-ICU is currently available at the website www.icudelirium.org (last access: October 19, 2019). The study enrolled 137 patients. The Tunisian CAM-ICU showed a very high inter-rater reliability for both intensivists in terms of assessing delirium (Kappa=0.844, p<0.001). Using the DSM-5 rater as the reference standard, the sensitivity of the two intensivists’ evaluations were 80.4% vs. 95.7%. Specificity was 98.9% for both respectively. Conclusions The Tunisian version of the CAM-ICU showed excellent validity and reliability in detecting delirium in critically ill patients. It could therefore be used in Tunisian ICUs or where Tunisian translators are available following appropriate training. Trial registration: Not applicable.

Comparison of Alcohol Use Disorders in DSM and ICD

2020 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 143-153
Author(s):  
Jessica W. M. Wong ◽  
Friedrich M. Wurst ◽  
Ulrich W. Preuss
Keyword(s):  
Alcohol Use Disorders ◽  
International Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Clinical Use ◽  
Diagnostic Systems ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Historical Developments

Abstract. Introduction: With advances in medicine, our understanding of diseases has deepened and diagnostic criteria have evolved. Currently, the most frequently used diagnostic systems are the ICD (International Classification of Diseases) and the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) to diagnose alcohol-related disorders. Results: In this narrative review, we follow the historical developments in ICD and DSM with their corresponding milestones reflecting the scientific research and medical considerations of their time. The current diagnostic concepts of DSM-5 and ICD-11 and their development are presented. Lastly, we compare these two diagnostic systems and evaluate their practicability in clinical use.

scholarly journals Impact of modification to DSM-5 criterion A for hypomania/mania in newly diagnosed bipolar patients: findings from the prospective BIO study

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mette U. Fredskild ◽  
Sharleny Stanislaus ◽  
Klara Coello ◽  
Sigurd A. Melbye ◽  
Hanne Lie Kjærstad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rating Scale ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Young Mania ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Criterion A ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Bipolar Type ◽  
Dsm Iv ◽  
Bipolar Patients

Abstract Background DSM-IV states that criterion A for diagnosing hypomania/mania is mood change. The revised DSM-5 now states that increased energy or activity must be present alongside mood changes to diagnose hypomania/mania, thus raising energy/activity to criterion A. We set out to investigate how the change in criterion A affects the diagnosis of hypomanic/manic visits in patients with a newly diagnosed bipolar disorder. Results In this prospective cohort study, 373 patients were included (median age = 32; IQR, 27–40). Women constituted 66% (n = 245) of the cohort and 68% of the cohort (n = 253) met criteria for bipolar type II, the remaining patients were diagnosed bipolar type I. Median number of contributed visits was 2 per subject (IQR, 1–3) and median follow-up time was 3 years (IQR, 2–4). During follow-up, 127 patients had at least one visit with fulfilled DSM-IV criterion A. Applying DSM-5 criterion A reduced the number of patients experiencing a hypomanic/manic visit by 62% at baseline and by 50% during longitudinal follow-up, compared with DSM-IV criterion A. Fulfilling DSM-5 criterion A during follow-up was associated with higher modified young mania rating scale score (OR = 1.51, CL [1.34, 1.71], p < 0.0001) and increased number of visits contributed (OR = 1.86, CL [1.52, 2.29], p < 0.0001). Conclusion Applying the stricter DSM-5 criterion A in a cohort of newly diagnosed bipolar patients reduced the number of patients experiencing a hypomanic/manic visit substantially, and was associated with higher overall young mania rating scale scores, compared with DSM-IV criterion A. Consequently, fewer hypomanic/manic visits may be detected in newly diagnosed bipolar patients with applied DSM-5 criterion A, and the upcoming ICD-11, which may possibly result in longer diagnostic delay of BD as compared with the DSM-IV.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document