PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Tieges, Zoë
AU  - MacLullich, Alasdair M. J.
AU  - Anand, Atul
AU  - Brookes, Claire
AU  - Cassarino, Marica
AU  - O’Connor, Margaret
AU  - Ryan, Damien
AU  - Saller, Thomas
AU  - Arora, Rakesh C.
AU  - Chang, Yue
AU  - Agarwal, Kathryn
AU  - Taffet, George
AU  - Quinn, Terence
AU  - Shenkin, Susan. D.
AU  - Galvin, Rose
TI  - Diagnostic Accuracy of the 4AT for delirium detection: systematic review and meta-analysis
AID  - 10.1101/2020.06.11.20128280
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.06.11.20128280
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/06/12/2020.06.11.20128280.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/06/12/2020.06.11.20128280.full
AB  - Objective Detection of delirium in hospitalised older adults is recommended in national and international guidelines. The 4 ‘A’s Test (4AT) 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 MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, clinicaltrials.gov and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from 2011 (year of 4AT release on the website www.the4AT.com) until 21 December 2019. Inclusion criteria were: older adults (≥65y); diagnostic accuracy study of the 4AT index test when compared to delirium reference standard (standard diagnostic criteria or validated tool). Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were generated from a bivariate random effects model.Results 17 studies (3721 observations) were included. Settings were acute medicine, surgery, a care home, and the emergency department. Three studies assessed performance of the 4AT in stroke. The overall prevalence of delirium was 24.2% (95% CI 17.8-32%; 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). Excluding the stroke studies, the pooled sensitivity was 0.86 (95% CI 0.77-0.92) and the pooled specificity was 0.89 (95% CI 0.83-0.93). The methodological quality of studies varied but was moderate to good.Conclusions The 4AT shows good diagnostic test accuracy for delirium in the 17 available studies. These findings support its use in routine clinical practice in delirium detection.PROSPERO Registration number CRD42019133702.Key pointsThe 4AT is a short delirium assessment tool that is widely used internationally in clinical practice.This systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies of the 4AT included 3721 observations in 17 studies from nine countries.Studies recruited from a range of settings including the Emergency Department, medical, stroke, and surgical wards.The 4AT had a pooled sensitivity 0.88 and pooled specificity of 0.88.The methodological quality of studies varied but was moderate to good overall.Competing Interest StatementAMJM led the design of the 4AT in 2011 (with others, see www.the4AT.com); note that 4AT is free to download and use. SDS and AA provided comments on its development.Clinical Protocols https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=133702 Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Wellcome Trust-University of Edinburgh Institutional Strategic Support Fund. Grant no. IS3-T06/03.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical review was not required for this review of existing peer reviewed literature.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll relevant data are provided within the paper.3D-CAM3-Minute Diagnostic Assessment for Delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method algorithm4AT4 ‘A’s TestbCAMbrief Confusion Assessment MethodCAM-ICUConfusion Assessment Method -Intensive Care UnitCAMConfusion Assessment MethodDRS-R98Delirium Rating Scale-Revised 98DSMDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental DisordersIQCODEInformant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the ElderlyMMSEMini-Mental Status ExaminationNICENational Institute for Health and Clinical ExcellencePRISMA-DTAPreferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy StudiesQUADAS-2Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies - Version 2SIGNScottish Intercollegiate Guidelines NetworkSTARDStandards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies