Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,422

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of delirium in critically ill patients: Validation of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU)

Ely, E. Wesley, Margolin, Richard, Francis, Joseph, May, Lisa, Truman, Brenda, Dittus, Robert, Speroff, Theodore, Gautam, Shiva, Bernard, Gordon R., Inouye, Sharon K.·2001·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate an instrument for use in the intensive care unit to accurately diagnose delirium in critically ill patients who are often nonverbal because of mechanical ventilation. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: The adult medical and coronary intensive care units of a tertiary care, university-based medical center. PATIENTS: Thirty-eight patients admitted to the intensive care units. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We designed and tested a modified version of the Confusion Assessment Method for use in intensive care unit patients and called it the CAM-ICU. Daily ratings from intensive care unit admission to hospital discharge by two study nurses and an intensivist who used the CAM-ICU were compared against the reference standard, a delirium expert who used delirium criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (fourth edition). A total of 293 daily, paired evaluations were completed, with reference standard diagnoses of delirium in 42% and coma in 27% of all observations. To include only interactive patient evaluations and avoid repeat-observer bias for patients studied on multiple days, we used only the first-alert or lethargic comparison evaluation in each patient. Thirty-three of 38 patients (87%) developed delirium during their intensive care unit stay, mean duration of 4.2 +/- 1.7 days. Excluding evaluations of comatose patients because of lack of characteristic delirium features, the two critical care study nurses and intensivist demonstrated high interrater reliability for their CAM-ICU ratings with kappa statistics of 0.84, 0.79, and 0.95, respectively (p <.001). The two nurses' and intensivist's sensitivities when using the CAM-ICU compared with the reference standard were 95%, 96%, and 100%, respectively, whereas their specificities were 93%, 93%, and 89%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The CAM-ICU demonstrated excellent reliability and validity when used by nurses and physicians to identify delirium in intensive care unit patients. The CAM-ICU may be a useful instrument for both clinical and research purposes to monitor delirium in this challenging patient population.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00003246-200107000-00012

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 2,422

Metadata

Authors
Ely, E. W., Margolin, R., Francis, J., May, L., Truman, B., Dittus, R., Speroff, T., Gautam, S., Bernard, G. R., & Inouye, S. K.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2001-07
Volume
29
Issue
7
Pages
1370-1379
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2004284087
Cited by
2,422
References
6
FWCI
19.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of delirium in critically ill patients: Validation of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00003246-200107000-00012
The paper
Ely, E. W., Margolin, R., Francis, J., May, L., Truman, B., Dittus, R., Speroff, T., Gautam, S., Bernard, G. R., & Inouye, S. K. (2001). Evaluation of delirium in critically ill patients: Validation of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU). Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-200107000-00012

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.