IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0267110.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Delirium diagnosis without a gold standard: Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of combined delirium assessment tools

Author

Listed:
  • Stephana J Moss
  • Chel Hee Lee
  • Christopher J Doig
  • Liam Whalen-Browne
  • Henry T Stelfox
  • Kirsten M Fiest

Abstract

Background: Fluctuating course of delirium and complexities of ICU care mean delirium symptoms are hard to identify or commonly confused with other disorders. Delirium is difficult to diagnose, and clinicians and researchers may combine assessments from multiple tools. We evaluated diagnostic accuracy of different combinations of delirium assessments performed in each enrolled patient. Methods: Data were obtained from a previously conducted cross-sectional study. Eligible adult patients who remained admitted to ICU for >24 hours with at least one family member present were consecutively enrolled as patient-family dyads. Clinical delirium assessments (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist [ICSDC] and Confusion Assessment Method-ICU [CAM-ICU]) were completed twice daily by bedside nurse or trained research assistant, respectively. Family delirium assessments (Family Confusion Assessment Method and Sour Seven) were completed once daily by family members. We pooled all delirium assessment tools in a single two-class latent model and pairwise (i.e., combined, clinical or family assessments) Bayesian analyses. Results: Seventy-three patient-family dyads were included. Among clinical delirium assessments, the ICDSC had lower sensitivity (0.72; 95% Bayesian Credible [BC] interval 0.54–0.92) and higher specificity (0.90; 95%BC, 0.82–0.97) using Bayesian analyses compared to pooled latent class analysis and CAM-ICU had higher sensitivity (0.90; 95%BC, 0.70–1.00) and higher specificity (0.94; 95%BC, 0.80–1.00). Among family delirium assessments, the Family Confusion Assessment Method had higher sensitivity (0.83; 95%BC, 0.71–0.92) and higher specificity (0.93; 95%BC, 0.84–0.98) using Bayesian analyses compared to pooled latent class analysis and the Sour Seven had higher specificity (0.85; 95%BC, 0.67–0.99) but lower sensitivity (0.64; 95%BC 0.47–0.82). Conclusions: Results from delirium assessment tools are often combined owing to imperfect reference standards for delirium measurement. Pairwise Bayesian analyses that explicitly accounted for each tool’s (performed within same patient) prior sensitivity and specificity indicate that two combined clinical or two combined family delirium assessment tools have fair diagnostic accuracy.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephana J Moss & Chel Hee Lee & Christopher J Doig & Liam Whalen-Browne & Henry T Stelfox & Kirsten M Fiest, 2022. "Delirium diagnosis without a gold standard: Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of combined delirium assessment tools," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-13, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0267110
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267110
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0267110
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0267110&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0267110?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. Nandini Dendukuri & Lawrence Joseph, 2001. "Bayesian Approaches to Modeling the Conditional Dependence Between Multiple Diagnostic Tests," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 57(1), pages 158-167, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nandini Dendukuri & Ian Schiller & Lawrence Joseph & Madhukar Pai, 2012. "Bayesian Meta-Analysis of the Accuracy of a Test for Tuberculous Pleuritis in the Absence of a Gold Standard Reference," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 68(4), pages 1285-1293, December.
    2. Adam Branscum & Timothy Hanson & Ian Gardner, 2008. "Bayesian non-parametric models for regional prevalence estimation," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(5), pages 567-582.
    3. Geoffrey Jones & Wesley O. Johnson, 2016. "A Bayesian Superpopulation Approach to Inference for Finite Populations Based on Imperfect Diagnostic Outcomes," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 21(2), pages 314-327, June.
    4. Hae-Young Kim & Michael G. Hudgens & Jonathan M. Dreyfuss & Daniel J. Westreich & Christopher D. Pilcher, 2007. "Comparison of Group Testing Algorithms for Case Identification in the Presence of Test Error," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 1152-1163, December.
    5. Fabio Principato & Angela Vullo & Domenica Matranga, 2010. "On implementation of the Gibbs sampler for estimating the accuracy of multiple diagnostic tests," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(8), pages 1335-1354.
    6. O’Neill, Donal, 2015. "Measuring obesity in the absence of a gold standard," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 116-128.
    7. Leandro García Barrado & Els Coart & Tomasz Burzykowski, 2017. "Estimation of diagnostic accuracy of a combination of continuous biomarkers allowing for conditional dependence between the biomarkers and the imperfect reference-test," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 73(2), pages 646-655, June.
    8. Geoffrey Jones & Wesley O. Johnson & Timothy E. Hanson & Ronald Christensen, 2010. "Identifiability of Models for Multiple Diagnostic Testing in the Absence of a Gold Standard," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 855-863, September.
    9. Scott Weichenthal & Lawrence Joseph & Patrick Bélisle & André Dufresne, 2010. "Bayesian Estimation of the Probability of Asbestos Exposure from Lung Fiber Counts," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(2), pages 603-612, June.
    10. Caitlin Ward & Grant D. Brown & Jacob J. Oleson, 2023. "An individual level infectious disease model in the presence of uncertainty from multiple, imperfect diagnostic tests," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(1), pages 426-436, March.
    11. Beavers, Daniel P. & Stamey, James D., 2012. "Bayesian sample size determination for binary regression with a misclassified covariate and no gold standard," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(8), pages 2574-2582.
    12. Stamey, James D. & Boese, Doyle H. & Young, Dean M., 2008. "Confidence intervals for parameters of two diagnostic tests in the absence of a gold standard," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 1335-1346, January.
    13. Paul Gustafson & Sander Greenland, 2006. "The Performance of Random Coefficient Regression in Accounting for Residual Confounding," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 62(3), pages 760-768, September.
    14. Adam J. Branscum & Dunlei Cheng & J. Jack Lee, 2015. "Testing hypotheses about medical test accuracy: considerations for design and inference," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(5), pages 1106-1119, May.
    15. Gustafson Paul, 2010. "Bayesian Inference for Partially Identified Models," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-20, March.
    16. Pierre Bessière & Brandon Hayes & Fabien Filaire & Laetitia Lèbre & Timothée Vergne & Matthieu Pinson & Guillaume Croville & Jean-Luc Guerin, 2023. "Optimizing environmental viral surveillance: bovine serum albumin increases RT-qPCR sensitivity for high pathogenicity avian influenza H5Nx virus detection from dust samples," Post-Print hal-04335181, HAL.
    17. Min Zhang & Chong Wang & Annette O’Connor, 2021. "A Bayesian approach to modeling antimicrobial multidrug resistance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-14, December.
    18. Elizabeth R. Brown, 2010. "Bayesian Estimation of the Time-Varying Sensitivity of a Diagnostic Test with Application to Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(4), pages 1266-1274, December.
    19. Nandini Dendukuri & Elham Rahme & Patrick Bélisle & Lawrence Joseph, 2004. "Bayesian Sample Size Determination for Prevalence and Diagnostic Test Studies in the Absence of a Gold Standard Test," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 60(2), pages 388-397, June.
    20. Shahieda Adams & Rodney Ehrlich & Roslynn Baatjies & Nandini Dendukuri & Zhuoyu Wang & Keertan Dheda, 2019. "Evaluating Latent Tuberculosis Infection Test Performance Using Latent Class Analysis in a TB and HIV Endemic Setting," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-11, August.

    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:pone00:0267110. 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.