ArticleNeuropsychiatric disease and treatment2020
Comparing Expert and Non-Expert Assessment of Patients Presenting with Neurological Symptoms to the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Observational Study.
Article in Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- FAST4D-A New Score to Reduce Missed Strokes in Emergency Medical Service: A Prospective, Multicentric Observational Proof-of-Concept Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Observational
- Experience of a Neuro-Emergency Expert in the Emergency Department during One Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Pitfalls in the Diagnosis of Posterior Circulation Stroke in the Emergency Setting.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveReferrals to neurology in emergency departments (ED) are continuously increasing, currently representing 15% of all admissions. Existing triage systems were developed for general medical populations and have not been validated for patients with neurological symptoms.
methodsTo characterize neurological emergencies, we first retrospectively analyzed symptoms, service times and resources of the cohort of neurological referrals to a German interdisciplinary ED (IED) during 2017 according to urgency determined by final IED diagnosis. In a second step, we performed a retrospective assignment of consecutive patients presenting in April 2017 according to internal guidelines as either acute (requiring diagnostic/therapeutic procedures within 24 hrs) or non-acute neurological conditions as well as a retrospective classification according to the Emergency Severity Index (ESI). Both assessments were compared with the urgency according to the final ER diagnosis.
resultsIn a 12-month period, 36.4% of 5340 patients were rated as having an urgent neurological condition; this correlated with age, door-to-doctor time, imaging resource use and admission (p < 0.001, respectively). In a subset of 275 patients, 59% were retrospectively triaged as acute according to neurological expertise and 48% according to ESI categories 1 and 2. Neurological triage identified urgency with a significantly higher sensitivity (94.8, p < 0.01) but showed a significantly lower specificity (55.1, p < 0.05) when compared to ESI (80.5 and 65.2, respectively).
conclusionThe ESI may not take specific aspects of neurological emergency (eg, time-sensitivity) sufficiently into account. Refinements of existing systems or supplementation with dedicated neurological triage tools based on neurological expertise and experience may improve the triage of patients with neurological symptoms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.