Diagnostic accuracy of the 4AT for delirium: A systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:7
|
作者
Hou, Liangying [1 ,2 ]
Zhang, Qian [3 ]
Cao, Liujiao [4 ]
Chen, Meixi [5 ]
Wang, Qi [1 ,6 ]
Li, Yanfei [1 ,2 ]
Li, Sheng [7 ]
Ge, Long [1 ,2 ,8 ]
Yang, Kehu [1 ,2 ,8 ]
机构
[1] Lanzhou Univ, Evidence Based Med Ctr, Sch Basic Med Sci, Lanzhou 730000, Peoples R China
[2] Lanzhou Univ, Evidence Based Social Sci Res Ctr, Sch Publ Hlth, Lanzhou 730000, Peoples R China
[3] Univ Ottawa, Fac Hlth Sci, Sch Nursing, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[4] Sichuan Univ, West China Hosp, West China Sch Nursing, Chengdu, Peoples R China
[5] Lanzhou Univ, Sch Clin Med 2, Lanzhou 730000, Peoples R China
[6] Lanzhou Univ, Dept Social Med & Hlth Management, Sch Publ Hlth, Lanzhou 730000, Peoples R China
[7] First Peoples Hosp Lanzhou City, Lanzhou 730000, Peoples R China
[8] Key Lab Evidence Based Med & Knowledge Translat Ga, Lanzhou 730000, Peoples R China
关键词
Delirium; Geriatrics; 4AT; Diagnostic; Meta; -analysis; METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY; COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT; CARE; VALIDATION; INSTRUMENT; TESTS;
D O I
10.1016/j.ajp.2022.103374
中图分类号
R749 [精神病学];
学科分类号
100205 ;
摘要
Introduction: Despite common, serious, costly, and often fatal conditions affecting up to 50 % of older patients, delirium is often unrecognized and overlooked. We examine the accuracy of the 4AT for detecting older patients with delirium.Methods: We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and EMBASE databases from inception to April 2020 and updated to January 2022. Four independently reviewers extracted study data and assessed the methodological quality using the revised quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (QUADAS-2). Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were generated using a bivariate random effects model. All statistical analyses were performed with STATA version 15.1 and Meta-DiSc version 1.4 software. Results: Eleven studies with 2789 participants were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (95 % CI: 0.81-0.91) and 0.87 (95 % CI: 0.79-0.92), respectively, and the positive and negative likelihood ratios were 6.66 (95 % CI: 4.12-10.74) and 0.15 (95 % CI: 0.10-0.23), respectively. Deeks' test indicated no significant publication bias (t = 0.83, P = 0.43). Univariable meta-regression showed that patient selection and flow and timing significantly influenced the pooled sensitivity (P < 0.05), settings significantly influenced the pooled specificity (P < 0.05).Conclusion: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that 4AT is a sensitive and specific screening tool for delirium in older patients. Its brevity and simplicity support its use in routine clinical practice, particularly in time-poor settings. Clinicians should come to a conclusion based largely on the 4AT findings in conjunction with clinical judgment.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests of the hip: a systematic review with meta-analysis
    Reiman, Michael P.
    Goode, Adam P.
    Hegedus, Eric J.
    Cook, Chad E.
    Wright, Alexis A.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2013, 47 (14) : 893 - 902
  • [22] Diagnostic accuracy of echocardiography for pulmonary hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Janda, Surinder
    Shahidi, Neal
    Gin, Kenneth
    Swiston, John
    HEART, 2011, 97 (08) : 612 - 622
  • [23] Diagnostic accuracy of screening tests for COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Haroon, Shamil
    Jordan, Rachel
    Takwoingi, Yemisi
    Adab, Peymane
    BMJ OPEN, 2015, 5 (10):
  • [24] Proadrenomedullin and neonatal sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy
    Gerasimos Panagiotis Milas
    Vasileios Issaris
    European Journal of Pediatrics, 2022, 181 : 59 - 71
  • [25] The accuracy of screening instruments for sarcopenia: a diagnostic systematic review and meta-analysis
    Huang, Li
    Shu, Xiaoyu
    Ge, Ning
    Gao, Langli
    Xu, Ping
    Zhang, Yu
    Chen, Yu
    Yue, Jirong
    Wu, Chenkai
    AGE AND AGEING, 2023, 52 (08)
  • [26] The accuracy of diagnostic indicators for coeliac disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Elwenspoek, Martha M. C.
    Jackson, Joni
    O'Donnell, Rachel
    Sinobas, Anthony
    Dawson, Sarah
    Everitt, Hazel
    Gillett, Peter
    Hay, Alastair D.
    Lane, Deborah L.
    Mallett, Susan
    Robins, Gerry
    Watson, Jessica C.
    Jones, Hayley E.
    Whiting, Penny
    PLOS ONE, 2021, 16 (10):
  • [27] Accuracy of penicillin allergy diagnostic tests: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Sousa-Pinto, Bernardo
    Tarrio, Isabel
    Blumenthal, Kimberly G.
    Araujo, Luis
    Azevedo, Luis Filipe
    Delgado, Luis
    Fonseca, Joao Almedia
    JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY, 2021, 147 (01) : 296 - 308
  • [28] Accuracy of cholera rapid diagnostic tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Muzembo, Basilua Andre
    Kitahara, Kei
    Debnath, Anusuya
    Okamoto, Keinosuke
    Miyoshi, Shin-Ichi
    CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY AND INFECTION, 2022, 28 (02) : 155 - 162
  • [29] Confusion assessment method: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy
    Shi, Qiyun
    Warren, Laura
    Saposnik, Gustavo
    MacDermid, Joy C.
    NEUROPSYCHIATRIC DISEASE AND TREATMENT, 2013, 9 : 1359 - 1370
  • [30] Accuracy of diagnostic tests for feline sporotrichosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Domingos, Eric L.
    Souza, Dalton A.
    Alves, Fernando M. S.
    Gorski, Daniela
    Tonin, Fernanda S.
    Ferreira, Luana M.
    Pontarolo, Roberto
    ACTA TROPICA, 2025, 263