↓ Skip to main content

Using the Chinese version of Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale to describe postoperative delirium after hip surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using the Chinese version of Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale to describe postoperative delirium after hip surgery
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, November 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2014.00297
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhongyong Shi, Yujie Wu, Cheng Li, Shukun Fu, Guodong Li, Yingbo Zhu, Celeste A. Swain, Edward R. Marcantonio, Zhongcong Xie, Yuan Shen

Abstract

Objective: Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) assesses severity of delirium. However, whether the MDAS can be used in a Chinese population is unknown. Moreover, the optimal postoperative MDAS cutoff point for describing postoperative delirium in Chinese remains largely to be determined. We therefore performed a pilot study to validate MDAS in the Chinese language and to determine the optimal postoperative MDAS cutoff point for delirium. Methods: Eighty-two patients (80 ± 6 years, 21.9% male), who had hip surgery under general anesthesia, were enrolled. The Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were administered to the patients before surgery. The CAM and MDAS were performed on the patients on the first, second and fourth postoperative days. The reliability and validity of the MDAS were determined. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the optimal Chinese version MDAS cutoff point for the identification of delirium. Results: The Chinese version of the MDAS had satisfactory internal consistency (α = 0.910). ROC analysis obtained an average optimal MDAS cutoff point of 7.5 in describing the CAM-defined postoperative delirium, with an area under the ROC of 0.990 (95% CI 0.977-1.000, P < 0.001). Conclusions: The Chinese version of the MDAS had good reliability and validity. The patients whose postoperative Chinese version MDAS cutoff point score was 7.5 would likely have postoperative delirium. These results have established a system for a larger scale study in the future.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Other 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Researcher 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 8 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 41%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Psychology 2 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 7 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 November 2014.
All research outputs
#20,243,777
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#4,274
of 4,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,142
of 262,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#64
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,759 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 262,689 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.