Home › Research › Clinical safety
Poststroke delirium incidence and outcomes: validation of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU)
Mitasova A, Kostalova M, Bednarik J, Michalcakova R, Kasparek T, Balabanova P, Dusek L, Vohanka S et al.. Critical care medicine, 2012-02-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Plain-language summary
Measurements and main results Criterion validity and overall accuracy of the Czech version of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) were determined using serial daily delirium assessments with CAM-ICU by a junior physician compared with delirium diagnosis by delirium experts using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition criteria that began the first day after stroke onset and continued for at least 7 days. Compared with the reference standard for diagnosing delirium, the CAM-ICU demonstrated a sensitivity of 76% (95% confidence interval [CI] 55% to 91%), a specificity of 98% (95% CI 93% to 100%), an overall accuracy of 94% (95% CI 88% to 97%), and high interrater reliability (κ = 0.94; 95% CI 0.83-1.0).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Mitasova, A., Kostalova, M., Bednarik, J., Michalcakova, R., Kasparek, T., Balabanova, P., et al. (2012). Poststroke delirium incidence and outcomes: validation of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU). Critical care medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0b013e318232da12
Vancouver
Mitasova A, Kostalova M, Bednarik J, Michalcakova R, Kasparek T, Balabanova P, et al. Poststroke delirium incidence and outcomes: validation of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU). Critical care medicine. 2012. doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e318232da12. PMID: 22001583.
BibTeX
@article{mitasova2012-22001583,
author = {Mitasova, A. and Kostalova, M. and Bednarik, J. and Michalcakova, R. and Kasparek, T. and Balabanova, P. and Dusek, L. and Vohanka, S. and others},
title = {{Poststroke delirium incidence and outcomes: validation of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU)}},
journal = {Critical care medicine},
year = {2012},
doi = {10.1097/ccm.0b013e318232da12},
pmid = {22001583},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0b013e318232da12}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Measurements and main results Criterion validity and overall accuracy of the Czech version of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) were determined using serial daily delirium assessments with CAM-ICU by a junior physician compared with delirium diagnosis by delirium experts using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition criteria that began the first day after stroke onset and continued for at least 7 days.
- Compared with the reference standard for diagnosing delirium, the CAM-ICU demonstrated a sensitivity of 76% (95% confidence interval [CI] 55% to 91%), a specificity of 98% (95% CI 93% to 100%), an overall accuracy of 94% (95% CI 88% to 97%), and high interrater reliability (κ = 0.94; 95% CI 0.83-1.0).
Study details
- Study designcohort study
- Participants129
- Effect size42.6%; 67.3%
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 64/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Critical care medicine) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A cohort study following people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2012 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 129 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 22001583) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 37 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100. |
| Total | 64 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Clinical safety from nearby years
Also tagged “palliative”
858 studies in the library carry the topic tag “palliative”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 858 tagged studies.