ArticleClinical and experimental emergency medicine2023
Uncooperative patients suspected of acute stroke ineligible for prehospital stroke screening test by emergency medical service providers: final hospital diagnoses and characteristics.
Article in Clinical and experimental emergency medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of snoring on the risk of stroke in patients with diabetes mellitus.Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung · 2024Article
- Epidemiology of stroke in emergency departments: a report from the National Emergency Department Information System (NEDIS) of Korea, 2018-2022.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study investigated the hospital diagnoses and characteristics of uncooperative prehospital patients suspected of acute stroke who could not undergo a prehospital stroke screening test (PHSST).
methodsThis retrospective observational study was conducted at a single academic hospital with a regional stroke center. We analyzed three scenario-based prehospital stroke screening performances using the final hospital diagnoses: (1) a conservative approach only in patients who underwent the PHSST, (2) a real-world approach that considered all uncooperative patients as screening positive, and (3) a contrapositive approach that all uncooperative patients were considered as negative.
resultsOf the 2,836 emergency medical services (EMS)-transported adult patients who met the prehospital criteria for suspicion of acute stroke, 486 (17.1%) were uncooperative, and 570 (20.1%) had a confirmed final diagnosis of acute stroke. The diagnosis in the uncooperative group did not differ from that in the cooperative group (22.0% vs. 19.7%, P=0.246). The diagnostic performances of the PHSST in the conservative approach were as follows: 79.5% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.5%-83.1%), 90.2% specificity (95% CI, 88.8%-91.6%), and 0.849 area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC; 95% CI, 0.829-0.868). The sensitivity and specificity were 83.3% (95% CI, 80.0%-86.3%) and 75.2% (95% CI, 73.3%-76.9%), respectively, in the real-world approach and 64.6% (95% CI, 60.5%-68.5%) and 91.9% (95% CI, 90.7%-93.0%), respectively, in the contrapositive approach. No significant difference was evident in the AUC between the real-world approach and the contrapositive approach (0.792 [95% CI, 0.775-0.810] vs. 0.782 [95% CI, 0.762-0.803], P>0.05).
conclusionWe found overestimation (false positive) and underestimation (false negative) in the uncooperative group depending on the scenario-based EMS stroke screening policy for uncooperative prehospital patients suspected of acute stroke.
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.