SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Detecting delirium in Parkinson's disease: an evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of bedside tools.

Age Ageing · 2025-07-01

DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afaf197PMID: 40684269

Open accessresearch-article; Journal Article; Observational StudyOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundDelirium is a serious, acute neuropsychiatric condition associated with fluctuating attention and altered arousal. Delirium in Parkinson's disease (PD) is common but often missed in hospital due to shared clinical features. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of current tools used to identify delirium in inpatients with PD.MethodsPeople with PD admitted to all hospital wards were invited to take part. Participants completed a standardised delirium assessment based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th Edition (DSM-5) criteria, in addition to standard bedside tools including the 4 As Test (4AT), arousal and cognition. This was a secondary analysis of a prospective observational study; bedside tools were not completed independently of, or blinded to, the DSM-5 criteria. Accuracy was assessed using Receiver Operating Characteristic area under the curve (AUROC).ResultsParticipants included 115 people with PD (200 hospital admissions); 66.1% (n = 76/115) had delirium. Considering all admissions, the diagnostic accuracy of tools was good, ranging from 74% to 89% (AUROC = 0.764-0.923, P ConclusionsCurrent bedside tools can accurately identify delirium in PD inpatients. Although tools were comparable, the 4AT may have greater clinical utility as it had high sensitivity, is quicker to complete and already widely used clinical. However, caution is recommended as tools did not differentiate between symptoms typical in PD and acute symptoms associated with delirium; this should be a focus for future research.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.