ArticleArchives of academic emergency medicine2023
Two-Stage Clinical Model for Screening the Suspected Cases of Acute Ischemic Stroke in Need of Imaging in Emergency Department; a Cross-sectional Study.
Article in Archives of academic 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.
- Diagnostic accuracy of the ROSIER scale for detecting acute ischemic stroke: a comparison with FAST-ED, CPSS, and reference criteria.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- A Look at Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine Journal in 2023.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Just as failure to diagnose an acute ischemic stroke (AIS) in a timely manner affects the patient's outcome; an inaccurate and misplaced impression of the AIS diagnosis is not without its drawbacks. Here, we introduce a two-stage clinical tool to aid in the screening of AIS cases in need of imaging in the emergency department (ED). Methods: This was a multicenter cross-sectional study, in which suspected AIS patients who underwent a brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were included. The 18 variables from nine existing AIS screening tools were extracted and a two-stage screening tool was developed based on expert opinion (stage-one or rule in stage) and multivariate logistic regression analysis (stage-two or rule out stage). Then, the screening performance characteristics of the two-stage mode was evaluated. Results: Data from 803 patients with suspected AIS were analyzed. Among them, 57.4 % were male, and their overall mean age was 66.9 ± 13.9 years. There were 561 (69.9%) cases with a final confirmed diagnosis of AIS. The total sensitivity and specificity of the two-stage screening model were 99.11% (95% CI: 98.33 to 99.89) and 35.95% (95% CI: 29.90 to 42.0), respectively. Also, the positive and negative predictive values of two-stage screening model were 78.20% (95% CI: 75.17 to 81.24) and 94.57% (95% CI: 89.93 to 81.24), respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the two-stage screening model for AIS was 67.53% (95% CI: 64.48 to 70.58). Overall, using the two-stage screening model presented in this study, more than 11% of suspected AIS patients were not referred for MRI, and the error of this model is about 5%. Conclusion: Here, we proposed a 2-step model for approaching suspected AIS patients in ED for an attempt to safely exclude patients with the least probability of having an AIS as a diagnosis. However, further surveys are required to assess its accuracy and it may even need some modifications.
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.