ArticleBMC emergency medicine2025
Diagnostic performance of a novel clinical score for predicting acute ischemic stroke in emergency department patients presenting with vertigo or dizziness.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2025. 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.
- Improving the Diagnostic Workup of Vertigo: A Multidisciplinary Review.Spartan medical research journal · 2025Review
- Risk stratification for stroke in acute persistent vertigo: development and internal validation of a multivariable prediction model.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVertigo or dizziness (VDS) are common reasons for emergency department (ED) visits and pose significant challenges in the early identification of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). The TriAGe + score was developed to predict AIS in patients presenting with VDS without relying on neuroimaging; however, its diagnostic accuracy compared with ABCD-based scores remains uncertain. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of the TriAGe + score in distinguishing central ischemic causes from peripheral etiologies in patients with VDS and to compare its predictive accuracy for AIS, including posterior circulation infarctions (PCIs), with that of the ABCD2, ABCD3, and ABCD3-I scores.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study evaluated 1,138 patients who presented to a tertiary ED with VDS complaints between January 2023 and July 2024. After applying the exclusion criteria, 886 patients were included. All patients underwent diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging within 72 h for diagnostic confirmation. On the basis of the imaging results, 210 patients were diagnosed with AIS, while 676 patients without findings consistent with AIS were considered the control group. The predictive performance of the TriAGe + and ABCD scores was evaluated in both groups via logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses.
resultsPCIs accounted for 74.3% of all AIS cases. The TriAGe + score demonstrated greater diagnostic accuracy than did the ABCD scores in the ROC analysis among all patients (AUC = 0.979; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.967-0.987). For the diagnosis of AIS in all patients, the TriAGe + score had a cutoff value of > 7, with a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 91.3%. In patients without focal weakness or sensory loss, the TriAGe + score remained a strong predictor of AIS, with a cutoff value of 5, yielding a sensitivity of 97.5% and a specificity of 80.9% (AUC = 0.950; 95% CI: 0.932-0.964).
conclusionThe TriAGe + score is useful in the diagnosis of AIS in patients presenting to the ED with VDS complaints. It outperforms ABCD scores in sensitivity and specificity, particularly in cases without focal neurological deficits. Implementing the TriAGE + score may optimize neuroimaging use, reduce healthcare costs, and improve ED efficiency by assisting clinicians in prioritizing high-risk patients. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.