Concordance between DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria for delirium diagnosis in a pooled database of 768 prospectively evaluated patients using the delirium rating scale-revised-98

  • David J. Meagher
  • , Alessandro Morandi
  • , Sharon K. Inouye
  • , Wes Ely
  • , Dimitrios Adamis
  • , Alasdair J. Maclullich
  • , James L. Rudolph
  • , Karin Neufeld
  • , Maeve Leonard
  • , Giuseppe Bellelli
  • , Daniel Davis
  • , Andrew Teodorczuk
  • , Stefan Kreisel
  • , Christine Thomas
  • , Wolfgang Hasemann
  • , Suzanne Timmons
  • , Niamh O'Regan
  • , Sandeep Grover
  • , Faiza Jabbar
  • , Walter Cullen
  • Colum Dunne, Barbara Kamholz, Barbara C. Van Munster, Sophia E. De Rooij, Jos De Jonghe, Paula T. Trzepacz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Background: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual fifth edition (DSM-5) provides new criteria for delirium diagnosis. We examined delirium diagnosis using these new criteria compared with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual fourth edition (DSM-IV) in a large dataset of patients assessed for delirium and related presentations. Methods: Patient data (n = 768) from six prospectively collected cohorts, clinically assessed using DSM-IV and the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R98), were pooled. Post hoc application of DRS-R98 item scores were used to rate DSM-5 criteria. 'Strict' and 'relaxed' DSM-5 criteria to ascertain delirium were compared to rates determined by DSM-IV. Results: Using DSM-IV by clinical assessment, delirium was found in 510/768 patients (66%). Strict DSM-5 criteria categorized 158 as delirious including 155 (30%) with DSM-IV delirium, whereas relaxed DSM-5 criteria identified 466 as delirious, including 455 (89%) diagnosed by DSM-IV (P <0.001). The concordance between the different diagnostic methods was: 53% (κ = 0.22) between DSM-IV and the strict DSM-5, 91% (κ = 0.82) between the DSM-IV and relaxed DSM-5 criteria and 60% (κ = 0.29) between the strict versus relaxed DSM-5 criteria. Only 155 cases were identified as delirium by all three approaches. The 55 (11%) patients with DSM-IV delirium who were not rated as delirious by relaxed criteria had lower mean DRS-R98 total scores than those rated as delirious (13.7 ± 3.9 versus 23.7 ± 6.0; P <0.001). Conversely, mean DRS-R98 score (21.1 ± 6.4) for the 70% not rated as delirious by strict DSM-5 criteria was consistent with suggested cutoff scores for full syndromal delirium. Only 11 cases met DSM-5 criteria that were not deemed to have DSM-IV delirium. Conclusions: The concordance between DSM-IV and the new DSM-5 delirium criteria varies considerably depending on the interpretation of criteria. Overly-strict adherence for some new text details in DSM-5 criteria would reduce the number of delirium cases diagnosed; however, a more 'relaxed' approach renders DSM-5 criteria comparable to DSM-IV with minimal impact on their actual application and is thus recommended.

Original languageEnglish
Article number164
JournalBMC Medicine
Volume12
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Keywords

  • Classification
  • Cognition
  • Delirium
  • Dementia
  • Diagnosis
  • Neurocognitive disorders

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Concordance between DSM-IV and DSM-5 criteria for delirium diagnosis in a pooled database of 768 prospectively evaluated patients using the delirium rating scale-revised-98'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this