Subject(s)
HLA-DR Antigens/biosynthesis , Head and Neck Neoplasms/metabolism , Monocytes/metabolism , Postoperative Complications/metabolism , Preoperative Care/methods , Vaccination/trends , Double-Blind Method , Gene Expression Regulation , Head and Neck Neoplasms/diagnosis , Head and Neck Neoplasms/surgery , Humans , Postoperative Complications/diagnosis , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , Vaccination/methodsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) depends on the test battery and calculation method used. The measurements may be performed with a paper and pencil test battery or with a computerized test battery. The objective of this study was to measure the incidence and congruence of POCD by comparing a computerized test battery with a paper and pencil test battery in the same patient population. METHODS: In total, 67 patients were included: 30 consecutive in-patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia and 37 non-surgical out-patients as control. Patients were tested with a paper and pencil test battery and a computerized test battery on inclusion in the study and 7 days later. Both test batteries covered the cognitive domains: visual attention, visual learning, memory, and speed of processing. RESULTS: The computerized test battery classified 10.0% (95% CI 3.5-25.6%) of the patients as suffering from POCD whereas the paper and pencil test battery classified 30.0% (95% CI 16.7-47.9%) as suffering (95% CI for difference 3.9-36.5%, P = 0.03). The inter-rater reliability between both test batteries showed moderate agreement (Cohen's kappa of 0.41). All patients identified by use of the computerized test battery were also identified with the paper and pencil test battery. The paper and pencil test battery identified 6 additional cases. CONCLUSION: In our study we demonstrated that the incidence of POCD measured with computerized test battery and paper and pencil test battery showed moderate inter-rater reliability. Use of neuropsychological test batteries theoretically covering the same cognitive domains does not automatically lead to the same classification of POCD.
Subject(s)
Cognition Disorders/epidemiology , Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted/methods , Neuropsychological Tests , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cognition Disorders/diagnosis , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Postoperative Complications/diagnosisABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Although alcohol use disorders (AUDs) have enormous public health consequences, the rate of diagnosis of AUDs remains unsatisfactorily low. The primary aim of this study was to compare the detection of AUDs by anesthesiologists in a large preoperative assessment clinic to that by computerized self-assessment of the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test. Secondary outcome measures were to compare the actions taken by anesthesiologists upon a finding of an AUD. METHODS: One thousand five hundred fifty-six patients were included. Before preoperative assessment, patients were asked to complete the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (positive scores: men > or = 8, women > or = 5) using a computer. The authors performed a retrospective chart analysis of the anesthesiologists' actions upon a finding of an AUD. The anesthesiologists were blinded to the results of the computer-based assessment and to the subsequent chart analysis. RESULTS: The prevalence rate of AUDs determined by the anesthesiologists was 6.9% (107 of 1,556), whereas the proportion of patients positive for an AUD using the computerised Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test was 18.1% (282 of 1,556) (P < 0.001). The detection rate by the anesthesiologists of AUDs among men was significantly higher than among women (P < 0.001) as well as in the elderly compared with younger patients (P < 0.001). Action taken by anesthesiologists was mainly based on evaluating quantity of alcohol consumption. CONCLUSION: The computer-based self-assessment increases detection rates of AUDs in busy settings such as a preoperative assessment clinic. Prevalence rates of AUDs are underestimated. Best-practice guidelines for detection of AUDs are not implemented in the daily clinical routine. Barrier analysis is urgently required.
