IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0227471.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A smartphone-based test for the assessment of attention deficits in delirium: A case-control diagnostic test accuracy study in older hospitalised patients

Author

Listed:
  • Zoë Tieges
  • David J Stott
  • Robert Shaw
  • Elaine Tang
  • Lisa-Marie Rutter
  • Eva Nouzova
  • Nikki Duncan
  • Caoimhe Clarke
  • Christopher J Weir
  • Valentina Assi
  • Hannah Ensor
  • Jennifer H Barnett
  • Jonathan Evans
  • Samantha Green
  • Kirsty Hendry
  • Meigan Thomson
  • Jenny McKeever
  • Duncan G Middleton
  • Stuart Parks
  • Tim Walsh
  • Alexander J Weir
  • Elizabeth Wilson
  • Tara Quasim
  • Alasdair M J MacLullich

Abstract

Background: Delirium is a common and serious acute neuropsychiatric syndrome which is often missed in routine clinical care. Inattention is the core cognitive feature. Diagnostic test accuracy (including cut-points) of a smartphone Delirium App (DelApp) for assessing attention deficits was assessed in older hospital inpatients. Methods: This was a case-control study of hospitalised patients aged ≥65 years with delirium (with or without pre-existing cognitive impairment), who were compared to patients with dementia without delirium, and patients without cognitive impairment. Reference standard delirium assessment, which included a neuropsychological test battery, was based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 criteria. A separate blinded assessor administered the DelApp arousal assessment (score 0–4) and attention task (0–6) yielding an overall score of 0 to 10 (lower scores indicate poorer performance). Analyses included receiver operating characteristic curves and sensitivity and specificity. Optimal cut-points for delirium detection were determined using Youden’s index. Results: A total of 187 patients were recruited, mean age 83.8 (range 67–98) years, 152 (81%) women; n = 61 with delirium; n = 61 with dementia without delirium; and n = 65 without cognitive impairment. Patients with delirium performed poorly on the DelApp (median score = 4/10; inter-quartile range 3.0, 5.5) compared to patients with dementia (9.0; 5.5, 10.0) and those without cognitive impairment (10.0; 10.0, 10.0). Area under the curve for detecting delirium was 0.89 (95% Confidence Interval 0.84, 0.94). At an optimal cut-point of ≤8, sensitivity was 91.7% (84.7%, 98.7%) and specificity 74.2% (66.5%, 81.9%) for discriminating delirium from the other groups. Specificity was 68.3% (56.6%, 80.1%) for discriminating delirium from dementia (cut-point ≤6). Conclusion: Patients with delirium (with or without pre-existing cognitive impairment) perform poorly on the DelApp compared to patients with dementia and those without cognitive impairment. A cut-point of ≤8/10 is suggested as having optimal sensitivity and specificity. The DelApp is a promising tool for assessment of attention deficits associated with delirium in older hospitalised adults, many of whom have prior cognitive impairment, and should be further validated in representative patient cohorts.

Suggested Citation

  • Zoë Tieges & David J Stott & Robert Shaw & Elaine Tang & Lisa-Marie Rutter & Eva Nouzova & Nikki Duncan & Caoimhe Clarke & Christopher J Weir & Valentina Assi & Hannah Ensor & Jennifer H Barnett & Jon, 2020. "A smartphone-based test for the assessment of attention deficits in delirium: A case-control diagnostic test accuracy study in older hospitalised patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0227471
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227471
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227471
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227471&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0227471?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:mpr:mprres:5094 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0227471. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.