Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28229398›Full record

ReviewCurrent neurology and neuroscience reports2017

Stroke Chameleons and Stroke Mimics in the Emergency Department.

Ava L Liberman, Shyam Prabhakaran

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current neurology and neuroscience reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 104 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Diagnostic challenges in emergency stroke: a case series.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Stroke chameleons: Diagnostic challenges.European journal of radiology open · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ava L LibermanDepartment of Neurology, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA. avliberm@montefiore.org.
Shyam PrabhakaranDepartment of Neurology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Albert Einstein College of Medicine · USNorthwestern University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewWe discuss the frequency of stroke misdiagnosis in the emergency department (ED), identify common diagnostic pitfalls, describe strategies to reduce diagnostic error, and detail ongoing research. RECENT

findingsThe National Academy of Medicine has re-defined and highlighted the importance of diagnostic errors for patient safety. Recent rates of stroke under-diagnosis (false-negative cases, "stroke chameleons") range from 2-26% and 30-43% for stroke over-diagnosis (false-positive cases, "stroke mimics"). Failure to diagnosis stroke can preclude time-sensitive treatments and has been associated with poor outcomes. Strategies have been developed to improve detection of posterior circulation stroke syndromes, but ongoing work is needed to reduce under-diagnosis in other atypical stroke presentations. The published rates of harm associated with stroke over-diagnosis, particularly thrombolysis of stroke mimics, remain low. Additional strategies to improve the accuracy of stroke diagnosis should focus on rapid clinical reasoning in the time-sensitive setting of acute ischemic stroke and identifying imperfections in the healthcare system which may contribute to diagnostic error.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ErrorsEmergency Service, HospitalHumansStrokeDiagnostic errorMisdiagnosisStroke assessment

Identifiers

PMID28229398
OpenAlexW2590837833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.