Journal of addiction medicine · 2020
Psychometric Properties of the Revised Clinical Institute Withdrawal Alcohol Assessment and the Brief Alcohol Withdrawal Scale in a Psychiatric Population.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Elefante Raymond Julius, Batkis Marcelo, Nelliot Archana, Abernathy Karen, Rocha Kristi, Jenkins Freddie, Rastegar Darius Anthony, Neufeld Karin Jane
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Psychiatric illness complicates the assessment of alcohol and sedative withdrawal (ASW). This study measured the diagnostic characteristics of the Revised Clinical Institute Withdrawal Alcohol Assessment (CIWA-Ar) and the Brief Alcohol Withdrawal Scale (BAWS) compared with a reference standard in patients with psychiatric illness and evaluated their administration time.
METHODS: This prospective quality improvement (QI) project conducted in November, 2016 evaluated 35 consecutive unique patients in psychiatric settings. Each patient was evaluated on 1 occasion, sequentially by 2 independent examiners with the CIWA-Ar and BAWS. A Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition diagnosis of ASW derived after medical record review by 2 psychiatrists blind to the screening results served as a reference standard. Psychometric properties of the CIWA-Ar and BAWS were measured against the reference.
RESULTS: Nineteen (54%) patients had ASW diagnosis by the reference standard. The sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI]) of the CIWA-Ar was 47% (25%-71%) at a cut-off score ≥8; sensitivity of the BAWS was 79% (54%-94%) at a cut-off score ≥3. Specificity (95% CI) for CIWA-Ar and BAWS was 88% (62%-98%) and 88% (62%-98%), respectively. Administration times (interquartile range) for the CIWA-Ar and BAWS were 120 (60-180) and 65 (50-75) seconds, respectively. Receiver operator characteristic area under the curve for CIWA-Ar was 0.77 and for BAWS was 0.76 (P = 0.86).
CONCLUSION: Both instruments performed similarly in assessing for mild to moderate ASW in a sample of patients with psychiatric illness. The BAWS took 65 seconds to administer-almost half as much time as the CIWA-Ar.
METHODS: This prospective quality improvement (QI) project conducted in November, 2016 evaluated 35 consecutive unique patients in psychiatric settings. Each patient was evaluated on 1 occasion, sequentially by 2 independent examiners with the CIWA-Ar and BAWS. A Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition diagnosis of ASW derived after medical record review by 2 psychiatrists blind to the screening results served as a reference standard. Psychometric properties of the CIWA-Ar and BAWS were measured against the reference.
RESULTS: Nineteen (54%) patients had ASW diagnosis by the reference standard. The sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI]) of the CIWA-Ar was 47% (25%-71%) at a cut-off score ≥8; sensitivity of the BAWS was 79% (54%-94%) at a cut-off score ≥3. Specificity (95% CI) for CIWA-Ar and BAWS was 88% (62%-98%) and 88% (62%-98%), respectively. Administration times (interquartile range) for the CIWA-Ar and BAWS were 120 (60-180) and 65 (50-75) seconds, respectively. Receiver operator characteristic area under the curve for CIWA-Ar was 0.77 and for BAWS was 0.76 (P = 0.86).
CONCLUSION: Both instruments performed similarly in assessing for mild to moderate ASW in a sample of patients with psychiatric illness. The BAWS took 65 seconds to administer-almost half as much time as the CIWA-Ar.