ReviewNeurology. Clinical practice2021
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Agreement in Suspected TIA.
Review in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hemodynamic analysis of non-stenotic middle cerebral artery in patients with cerebral ischemia based on 4D flow MRI.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Comparison of Dual Antiplatelet Therapies for Minor, Nondisabling, Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guidelines on management of transient ischaemic attack.European stroke journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the interrater variability for TIA diagnostic agreement among expert clinicians (neurologists/stroke physicians), administrative data, and nonspecialists.
methodsWe performed a meta-analysis of studies from January 1984 to January 2019 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed. Two reviewers independently screened for eligible studies and extracted interrater variability measurements using Cohen's kappa scores to assess diagnostic agreement.
resultsNineteen original studies consisting of 19,421 patients were included. Expert clinicians demonstrate good agreement for TIA diagnosis (κ = 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.62-0.81). Interrater variability between clinicians' TIA diagnosis and administrative data also demonstrated good agreement (κ = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.62-0.74). There was moderate agreement (κ = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.22-0.61) between referring clinicians and clinicians at TIA clinics receiving the referrals. Sixty percent of 748 patient referrals to TIA clinics were TIA mimics.
conclusionsOverall agreement between expert clinicians was good for TIA diagnosis, although variation still existed for a sizeable proportion of cases. Diagnostic agreement for TIA decreased among nonspecialists. The substantial number of patients being referred to TIA clinics with other (often neurologic) diagnoses was large, suggesting that clinicians, who are proficient in managing TIAs and their mimics, should run TIA clinics.
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.