↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Confusion assessment method: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
109 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Confusion assessment method: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, September 2013
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s49520
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qiyun Shi, Laura Warren, Gustavo Saposnik, Joy C MacDermid

Abstract

Delirium is common in the early stages of hospitalization for a variety of acute and chronic diseases. To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of two delirium screening tools, the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychInfo for relevant articles published in English up to March 2013. We compared two screening tools to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV criteria. Two reviewers independently assessed studies to determine their eligibility, validity, and quality. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a bivariate model. Twenty-two studies (n = 2,442 patients) met the inclusion criteria. All studies demonstrated that these two scales can be administered within ten minutes, by trained clinical or research staff. The pooled sensitivities and specificity for CAM were 82% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 69%-91%) and 99% (95% CI: 87%-100%), and 81% (95% CI: 57%-93%) and 98% (95% CI: 86%-100%) for CAM-ICU, respectively. Both CAM and CAM-ICU are validated instruments for the diagnosis of delirium in a variety of medical settings. However, CAM and CAM-ICU both present higher specificity than sensitivity. Therefore, the use of these tools should not replace clinical judgment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 152 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 15%
Researcher 21 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 10%
Student > Postgraduate 13 8%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Other 40 26%
Unknown 31 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 14%
Psychology 9 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 33 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 May 2021.
All research outputs
#3,560,742
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#525
of 3,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,211
of 212,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#7
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,132 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 212,459 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.