Browsing by Author "Adamis, Dimitrios"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    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 Medicine
    Objective: 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    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 Medicine
    Background 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Reporting Essentials for DElirium bioMarker Studies (REDEEMS): Explanation and Elaboration
    (European Delirium Association, 2022-12-21) Amgarth-Duff, Ingrid; Hosie, Annemarie; Caplan, Gideon A.; Adamis, Dimitrios; Watne, Leiv Otto; Cunningham, Colm; Oh, Esther S.; Wang, Sophia; Lindroth, Heidi; Sanders, Robert D.; Olofsson, Birgitta; Girard, Timothy D.; Steiner, Luzius A.; Vasunilashorn, Sarinnapha M.; Agar, Meera; Psychiatry, School of Medicine
    Despite many studies of potential delirium biomarkers, delirium pathophysiology remains unclear. Evidence shows that the quality of reporting delirium biomarker studies is sub-optimal. Better reporting of delirium biomarker studies is needed to understand delirium pathophysiology better. To improve robustness, transparency and uniformity of delirium biomarker study reports, the REDEEMS (Reporting Essentials for DElirium bioMarker Studies) guideline was developed by an international group of delirium researchers through a three-stage process, including a systematic review, a three-round Delphi study, and a follow-up consensus meeting. This process resulted in a 9-item guideline to inform delirium fluid biomarker studies. To enhance implementation of the REDEEMS guideline, this Explanation and Elaboration paper provides a detailed explanation of each item. We anticipate that the REDEEMS guideline will help to accelerate our understanding of delirium pathophysiology by improving the reporting of delirium biomarker research and, consequently the capacity to synthesise results across studies.