- Browse by Author
Browsing by Author "Adamis, Dimitrios"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item A comparison of the revised Delirium Rating Scale (DRS–R98) and the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) in a palliative care cohort with DSM–IV delirium(Cambridge, 2015-08) O'Sullivan, Roisin; Meagher, David; Leonard, Maeve; Watne, Leiv Otto; Hall, Roanna J.; Maclullich, Alasdair M. J.; Trzepacz, Paula; Adamis, Dimitrios; Department of Psychiatry, IU School of MedicineObjective: Assessment of delirium is performed with a variety of instruments, making comparisons between studies difficult. A conversion rule between commonly used instruments would aid such comparisons. The present study aimed to compare the revised Delirium Rating Scale (DRS–R98) and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) in a palliative care population and derive conversion rules between the two scales. Method: Both instruments were employed to assess 77 consecutive patients with DSM–IV delirium, and the measures were repeated at three-day intervals. Conversion rules were derived from the data at initial assessment and tested on subsequent data. Results: There was substantial overall agreement between the two scales [concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) = 0.70 (CI95 = 0.60–0.78)] and between most common items (weighted κ ranging from 0.63 to 0.86). Although the two scales overlap considerably, there were some subtle differences with only modest agreement between the attention (weighted κ = 0.42) and thought process (weighted κ = 0.61) items. The conversion rule from total MDAS score to DRS–R98 severity scores demonstrated an almost perfect level of agreement (r = 0.86, CCC = 0.86; CI95 = 0.79–0.91), similar to the conversion rule from DRS–R98 to MDAS. Significance of results: Overall, the derived conversion rules demonstrated promising accuracy in this palliative care population, but further testing in other populations is certainly needed.Item Concordance between DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria for delirium diagnosis in a pooled database of 768 prospectively evaluated patients using the delirium rating scale-revised-98(BioMed Central, 2014-09-30) Meagher, David J.; Morandi, Alessandro; Inouye, Sharon K.; Ely, Wes; Adamis, Dimitrios; Maclullich, Alasdair J.; Rudolph, James L.; Neufeld, Karin; Leonard, Maeve; Bellelli, Giuseppe; Davis, Daniel; Teodorczuk, Andrew; Kreisel, Stefan; Thomas, Christine; Hasemann, Wolfgang; Timmons, Suzanne; O’Regan, Niamh; Grover, Sandeep; Jabbar, Faiza; Cullen, Walter; Dunne, Colum; Kamholz, Barbara; Van Munster, Barbara C.; De Rooij, Sophia E.; De Jonghe, Jos; Trzepacz, Paula T.; Department of Psychiatry, School of MedicineBackground The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual fifth edition (DSM-5) provides new criteria for delirium diagnosis. We examined delirium diagnosis using these new criteria compared with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual fourth edition (DSM-IV) in a large dataset of patients assessed for delirium and related presentations. Methods Patient data (n = 768) from six prospectively collected cohorts, clinically assessed using DSM-IV and the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R98), were pooled. Post hoc application of DRS-R98 item scores were used to rate DSM-5 criteria. ‘Strict’ and ‘relaxed’ DSM-5 criteria to ascertain delirium were compared to rates determined by DSM-IV. Results Using DSM-IV by clinical assessment, delirium was found in 510/768 patients (66%). Strict DSM-5 criteria categorized 158 as delirious including 155 (30%) with DSM-IV delirium, whereas relaxed DSM-5 criteria identified 466 as delirious, including 455 (89%) diagnosed by DSM-IV (P <0.001). The concordance between the different diagnostic methods was: 53% (ĸ = 0.22) between DSM-IV and the strict DSM-5, 91% (ĸ = 0.82) between the DSM-IV and relaxed DSM-5 criteria and 60% (ĸ = 0.29) between the strict versus relaxed DSM-5 criteria. Only 155 cases were identified as delirium by all three approaches. The 55 (11%) patients with DSM-IV delirium who were not rated as delirious by relaxed criteria had lower mean DRS-R98 total scores than those rated as delirious (13.7 ± 3.9 versus 23.7 ± 6.0; P <0.001). Conversely, mean DRS-R98 score (21.1 ± 6.4) for the 70% not rated as delirious by strict DSM-5 criteria was consistent with suggested cutoff scores for full syndromal delirium. Only 11 cases met DSM-5 criteria that were not deemed to have DSM-IV delirium. Conclusions The concordance between DSM-IV and the new DSM-5 delirium criteria varies considerably depending on the interpretation of criteria. Overly-strict adherence for some new text details in DSM-5 criteria would reduce the number of delirium cases diagnosed; however, a more ‘relaxed’ approach renders DSM-5 criteria comparable to DSM-IV with minimal impact on their actual application and is thus recommended.