Validation of the Delirium Rating Scale-revised-98: comparison with the delirium rating scale and the cognitive test for delirium.

University of Mississippi Medical Center and the Sonny Montogomery Veterans Affairs Center, Jackson, USA.
Journal of Neuropsychiatry (Impact Factor: 2.77). 02/2001; 13(2):229-42.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The DRS-R-98, a 16-item clinician-rated scale with 13 severity items and 3 diagnostic items, was validated against the Cognitive Test for Delirium (CTD), Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI), and Delirium Rating Scale (DRS) among five diagnostic groups (N=68): delirium, dementia, depression, schizophrenia, and other. Mean and median DRS-R-98 scores significantly (P<0.001) distinguished delirium from each other group. DRS-R-98 total scores correlated highly with DRS, CTD, and CGI scores. Interrater reliability and internal consistency were very high. Cutoff scores for delirium are recommended based on ROC analyses (sensitivity and specificity ranges: total, 91%-100% and 85%-100%; severity, 86%-100% and 77%-93%, respectively, depending on the cutoffs or comparison groups chosen). The DRS-R-98 is a valid measure of delirium severity over a broad range of symptoms and is a useful diagnostic and assessment tool. The DRS-R-98 is ideal for longitudinal studies.

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: ABSTRACT Background: The recently published DSM-5 criteria for delirium may lead to different case identification and rates of delirium than previous classifications. The aims of this study are to determine how the new DSM-5 criteria compare with DSM-IV in identification of delirium in elderly medical inpatients and to investigate the agreement between different methods, using CAM, DRS-R98, DSM-IV, and DSM-5 criteria. Methods: Prospective, observational study of elderly patients aged 70+ admitted under the acute medical teams in a regional general hospital. Each participant was assessed within 3 days of admission using the DSM-5, and DSM-IV criteria plus the DRS-R98, and CAM scales. Results: We assessed 200 patients [mean age 81.1±6.5; 50% female; pre-existing cognitive impairment in 63%]. The prevalence rates of delirium for each diagnostic method were: 13.0% (n = 26) for DSM-5; 19.5% (n = 39) for DSM-IV; 13.5% (n = 27) for DRS-R98 and 17.0%, (n = 34) for CAM. Using tetrachoric correlation coefficients the agreement between DSM-5 and DSM-IV was statistically significant (ρtetr = 0.64, SE = 0.1, p < 0.0001). Similar significant agreement was found between the four methods. Conclusions: DSM-IV is the most inclusive diagnostic method for delirium, while DSM-5 is the most restrictive. In addition, these classification systems identify different cases of delirium. This could have clinical, financial, and research implications. However, both classification systems have significant agreement in the identification of the same concept (delirium). Clarity of diagnosis is required for classification but also further research considering the relevance in predicting outcomes can allow for more detailed evaluation of the DSM-5 criteria.
    International Psychogeriatrics 01/2015; DOI:10.1017/S1041610214002853 · 1.89 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Acute hospitals have seen unprecedented demographic changes, where older age, frailty and cognitive impairment now characterise the majority of health service users. Delirium is very common in this setting, and adverse outcomes are well described. However, studies investigating cognitive outcomes after delirium in unselected samples have been lacking. This thesis had four objectives: (1) To estimate the prevalence of delirium in the general population (2) To assess the association of delirium with cognitive outcomes (3) To investigate how these associations relate to underlying dementia pathology (4) To develop novel methods for retrospectively ascertaining delirium. Methods: Data from three population-based neuropathology cohort studies were used: Vantaa 85+; Cambridge City over-75s Cohort (CC75C); MRC Cognitive Function and Ageing Study (CFAS). (1) To ascertain the prevalence of delirium in the general population, a measure of delirium was developed using data recorded in standardised interview schedules, with criterion validity evaluated through the association with mortality and dementia risk. (2) The association with cognitive outcomes was tested in a series of logistic regression models, where delirium was the exposure and dementia (or worsening dementia severity) was the outcome. In addition, the association with change in Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) score was assessed using random-effects linear regression. (3) In brain donors from all three cohorts, the independent effects of delirium, dementia pathology, and their interaction, were investigated using the same approach. (4) A chart-based method for deriving a retrospective diagnosis for delirium was developed, validated against bedside psychiatrist diagnosis. Vignettes from the medical record were abstracted and delirium status decided by expert consensus panel. Results: (1) Age-specific prevalence in CFAS increased with age from 1.8% in the 65-69 year age group to 13.5% in the ≥90 age group (p<0.01 for trend). (2) Delirium was consistently associated with adverse cognitive outcomes: new dementia (OR 8.7, 95% CI 2.1 to 35); worsening dementia severity (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.5 to 6.3); faster change in Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) score (1.0 additional points/year, p<0.01) (3) In the neuropathology analyses, decline attributable to delirium was -0.37 MMSE points/year (p<0.01). Decline attributable to dementia pathology was -0.39 MMSE points/year (p<0.01). However, the combination of delirium and dementia pathology resulted in the greatest decline, where the interaction contributed a further -0.16 MMSE points/year (p=0.01), suggesting that delirium worsened cognitive trajectories in dementia, but through distinct pathophysiological pathways not accounted for by Alzheimer’s, vascular or Lewy body pathology. (4) The chart abstraction method yielded a sensitivity of 0.88 and specificity 0.75 for ‘possible delirium’, with lower sensitivity (0.58) and higher specificity (0.93) for ‘probable delirium’ (AUC 0.86, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.89). This thesis adds to the small body of work on delirium in prospective studies, with the first ever analyses conducted in whole populations. The findings suggest new possibilities regarding the pathology of cognitive impairment, positioning delirium and/or its precipitants as a critically inter-related mechanism.
    10/2013, Degree: PhD, Supervisor: Carol Brayne
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Delirium is highly prevalent among elderly post-operative patients with no pharmacological intervention approved by the Food and Drug Administration for prevention or treatment. We conducted a systematic evidence review to critically appraise literature related to the pharmacotherapy of post-operative delirium. Ten studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria with two interventions for delirium treatment and eight interventions for delirium prevention in post-operative patients. The quality of evidence of delirium treatment studies was poor, whereas the quality of evidence in delirium prevention studies ranges from moderate to high. Delirium treatment studies find similar delirium duration and length-of-stay outcomes between haloperidol and either morphine or ondansetron. Risperidone was found to reduce the conversion of sub-syndromal delirium to delirium in one study compared to placebo. Haloperidol, olanzapine, and ketamine were each found to reduce delirium incidence, whereas rivastigmine had no impact on delirium incidence or duration. Lighter anesthesia as monitored by bi-spectral index led to a decreased delirium incidence. Considering results from studies conducted prior to the dates of this review, the current evidence suggests that certain pharmacologic classes and lighter sedation using BIS monitoring may prevent post-operative delirium, although a conclusive recommendation for clinical practice must await further research.
    03/2015; 5(1):57-64. DOI:10.1007/s40140-014-0090-5

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 28, 2014