z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
33 Diagnostic Test Accuracy of the 4AT for Delirium Detection: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Author(s) -
Zoë Tieges,
Alasdair M. J. MacLullich,
Atul Anand,
M Cassaroni,
Margaret O’Connor,
Damien Ryan,
Thomas Saller,
Rohan Arora,
Yue Chang,
Kathryn Agarwal,
George E. Taffet,
Terence J. Quinn,
Susan D. Shenkin,
Rose Galvin
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
age and ageing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.014
H-Index - 143
eISSN - 1468-2834
pISSN - 0002-0729
DOI - 10.1093/ageing/afab029.12
Subject(s) - delirium , medicine , meta analysis , cinahl , medline , psycinfo , data extraction , cochrane library , acute care , gold standard (test) , emergency department , emergency medicine , intensive care medicine , psychiatry , health care , psychological intervention , political science , law , economics , economic growth
Detection of delirium in hospitalised older adults is recommended in national and international guidelines. The 4 ‘A’s Test (4AT; www.the4AT.com) is a short (<2 min) instrument for delirium detection that is used internationally as a standard tool in clinical practice. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy of the 4AT for delirium detection. Methods We searched the following electronic databases through Ovid: MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. Additional databases were searched: CINAHL (EBSCOhost), clinicaltrials.gov and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 2011 (4AT publication) until 21 December 2019. Inclusion criteria: older adults (≥65) across any setting of care except critical care; validation study of the 4AT against a delirium reference standard (standard diagnostic criteria or validated tool). Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and papers and performed the data extraction. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were generated from a bivariate random effects model. Results 17 studies (n = 3,701 observations) were included. Various settings including acute medicine, surgery, stroke wards and the emergency department were represented. The overall prevalence of delirium was 24.2% (95% CI 17.8–32.1%; range 10.5–61.9%). The pooled sensitivity was 0.88 (95% CI 0.80–0.93) and the pooled specificity was 0.88 (95% CI 0.82–0.92). The methodological quality of studies was mostly good. Conclusions The 4AT is now supported by a substantial evidence base comparable to other well-studied tools such as the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM). The strong pooled sensitivity and specificity findings for the 4AT in this meta-analysis along with its brevity and lack of need for specific training provide support for its use as an effective assessment tool for delirium.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom