4.4 Article

Validity and reliability of the DDS for severity of delirium in the ICU

期刊

NEUROCRITICAL CARE
卷 2, 期 2, 页码 150-158

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1385/NCC:2:2:150

关键词

ICU; sedation; analgesia; score; withdrawal symptoms; delirium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Until now, there has been no gold standard for monitoring delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. In this prospective cohort study, a new score, the Delirium Detection Score (DDS), for severity of delirium in the ICU was evaluated. Methods: After ethical approval and written informed consent, intensive care doctors and nurses assessed 1073 consecutive patients in surgical ICUs using the DDS together with the Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS). The DDS is composed of eight criteria (orientation, hallucination, agitation, anxiety, seizures, tremor, paroxysmal sweating, and altered sleepwake rhythm). Additionally, intensive care doctors had to document the Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) combined with a defined clinical assessment. For interrater reliability, pair of evaluators assessed patients in a blinded fashion at the same time. Results: RSS1 (9%) was associated with a significantly (p < 0.001) higher DDS than RSS levels 2-6. The DDS increased with the severity of delirium (p < 0.001). The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) for the differentiation between no delirium (SAS < 4) and symptoms of delirium at all (SAS 5-7) showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.802 (95% confidential interval (Cl): 0.719-0.898; p < 0.001) and 69% sensitivity and 75% specificity was determined. For reliability, a Cronbach's (x of 0.667 was calculated. The paired comparisons revealed an intraclass correlation between 0.642 and 0.758. Conclusion: The DDS demonstrated good validity with excellent sensitivity and specificity for delirium. The severity of delirium can be more accurately estimated by the DDS. By its composition of several items, the DDS might help to start a symptom-guided therapy immediately.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据