Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36285188›Full record

ArticlePatient related outcome measures2022

The Validity of Clinical Scoring in the Diagnosis of Stroke Subtype: Validation Study.

Biruk Endalkachew Mekonnen, Molla Asnake Kebede

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient related outcome measures, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Biruk Endalkachew MekonnenDepartment of Biomedical Science, School of Medicine, Mizan-Tepi University, Mizan-Aman, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0003-3577-376X
Molla Asnake KebedeDepartment of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Mizan-Tepi University, Mizan-Aman, Ethiopia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The gold standard for distinguishing stroke subtype is non-contrast CT. However, it's still prohibitively expensive and out of reach for the majority of recourse-constrained settings. Clinically, not all patients will have a definite diagnosis of hemorrhagic/ischemic stroke. To overcome these challenges and improve clinical bedside diagnosis, clinical stroke scores for stroke subtypes have been developed and recommended to be used in the absence of appropriate imaging modality. Methods: We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study among stroke patients to compare the accuracy of level of clinical stroke score methods in differentiating stroke type with CT. it was conducted on 140 people at MTU teaching hospital in Bench-Sheko Zone, South-west Ethiopia. Data were collected using check list. Analysis of the data was done using SPSS version 24. Results: Our result revealed an incidence of hemorrhagic stroke were 50%, ischemic stroke were 48.6% by CT evaluation. Specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and the overall accuracy of Siriraj stroke score for differentiation of hemorrhage from ischemic stroke were 68.6%, 83.9%, 74.6%, 79.5%, and 82% respectively, the Guys score were 89.7%, 47.8%, 73.3%, 74.5% and 74.5% respectively and while the Bensson score were 88.6%, 35.3%, 75%, 58.5%, and 62.3% respectively. Conclusion: We conclude that Siriraj stroke score showed good sensitivity and fair overall accuracy for hemorrhagic stroke even if it had poor specificity.

Indexed as

clinical scoreindex testsstrokevalidity

Identifiers

PMID36285188
PMCPMC9588290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.