↓ 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 (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
103 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 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, Warren, Saposnik, 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.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 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 140 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 16%
Researcher 20 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 10 7%
Other 38 27%
Unknown 25 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 14%
Psychology 9 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 27 19%

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
#3,052,668
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#442
of 2,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,034
of 200,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#5
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,977 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 200,186 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.