Skip navigation
Universidade Federal da Bahia |
Repositório Institucional da UFBA
Use este identificador para citar ou linkar para este item: https://repositorio.ufba.br/handle/ri/16218
Registro completo de metadados
Campo DCValorIdioma
dc.contributor.authorFlores, Dimitri Gusmao-
dc.contributor.authorSalluh, Jorge Ibrain Figueira-
dc.contributor.authorChalhub, Ricardo Ávila-
dc.contributor.authorQuarantini, Lucas de Castro-
dc.creatorFlores, Dimitri Gusmao-
dc.creatorSalluh, Jorge Ibrain Figueira-
dc.creatorChalhub, Ricardo Ávila-
dc.creatorQuarantini, Lucas de Castro-
dc.date.accessioned2014-10-01T14:19:02Z-
dc.date.available2014-10-01T14:19:02Z-
dc.date.issued2012-
dc.identifier.issn1364-8535-
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorio.ufba.br/ri/handle/ri/16218-
dc.descriptionp. 1-10pt_BR
dc.description.abstractIntroduction Delirium is a frequent form of acute brain dysfunction in critically ill patients, and several detection tools for it have been developed for use in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The objective of this study is to evaluate the current evidence on the accuracy of the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) for the diagnosis of delirium in critically ill patients. Methods A systematic review was conducted to identify articles on the evaluation of the CAM-ICU and the ICDSC in ICU patients. A MEDLINE, SciELO, CINAHL and EMBASE databases search was performed for articles published in the English language, involving adult populations and comparing these diagnostic tools with the gold standard, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) criteria. Results were summarized by meta-analysis. The QUADAS scale was used to assess the quality of the studies. Results Nine studies evaluating the CAM-ICU (including 969 patients) and four evaluating the ICDSC (n = 361 patients) were included in the final analysis. The pooled sensitivity of the CAM-ICU was 80.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 77.1 to 82.6%), and the pooled specificity was 95.9% (95% CI: 94.8 to 96.8%). The diagnostic odds ratio was 103.2 (95% CI: 39.6 to 268.8). The pooled area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.97. The pooled sensitivity of the ICDSC was 74% (95% CI: 65.3 to 81.5%), and the pooled specificity was 81.9% (95% CI: 76.7 to 86.4%). The diagnostic odds ratio was 21.5 (95% CI: 8.51 to 54.4). The AUC was 0.89. Conclusions The CAM-ICU is an excellent diagnostic tool in critically ill ICU patients, whereas the ICDSC has moderate sensitivity and good specificity. The available data suggest that both CAM-ICU and the ICDSC can be used as a screening tool for the diagnosis of delirium in critically ill patients.pt_BR
dc.language.isoenpt_BR
dc.rightsAcesso Abertopt_BR
dc.sourcehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1186/cc11407pt_BR
dc.titleThe confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU) and intensive care delirium screening checklist (ICDSC) for the diagnosis of delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studiespt_BR
dc.title.alternativeCritical Carept_BR
dc.typeArtigo de Periódicopt_BR
dc.identifier.numberv. 16, n. 4pt_BR
Aparece nas coleções:Artigo Publicado em Periódico (Faculdade de Medicina)

Arquivos associados a este item:
Arquivo Descrição TamanhoFormato 
Lucas C. Quarantini.pdf456,25 kBAdobe PDFVisualizar/Abrir
Mostrar registro simples do item Visualizar estatísticas


Os itens no repositório estão protegidos por copyright, com todos os direitos reservados, salvo quando é indicado o contrário.