ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2025
Diagnostic accuracy of the STANDING algorithm in patients with isolated vertigo: a multicentre prospective study (STANDING-M).
Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Dizziness in the emergency department and risk of stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic challenges in posterior circulation ischemic stroke presenting with acute dizziness and vertigo.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Review
- Improving the Diagnostic Workup of Vertigo: A Multidisciplinary Review.Spartan medical research journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the STANDING algorithm for central vertigo across different emergency departments (EDs). Secondary outcomes compared STANDING with usual care in terms of diagnostic accuracy, resource utilisation and length of stay (LOS).
methodsWe prospectively enrolled adult patients presenting with vertigo at one 'hub' and three 'spoke' EDs in Tuscany. Patients were assessed using either STANDING or 'usual care', depending on the availability of a trained emergency physician. Imaging tests, consultations and dispositions were made independently of the study. The final diagnosis of central vertigo was determined by an expert panel, based on clinical data, along with a 30-day follow-up.
resultsA total of 456 patients were included, with 242 (53%) assessed by STANDING. There were no statistically significant differences in age, gender or cardiovascular risk factors between the STANDING and usual care groups. The prevalence of central vertigo was 8.6%, with ischaemic stroke (4.2%) as the leading cause, with no differences between groups. The STANDING algorithm had a sensitivity of 88.2%, specificity of 91.6%, positive predictive value of 44.1%, and negative predictive value of 99%. Usual care showed lower specificity and positive predictive value (36.5% and 14.7%, respectively, p<0.05). Additionally, the STANDING group had both fewer non-contrast head CT (NCCT) requests (48.3% vs 66.8%) and a shorter LOS (median 271 vs 339 min) (p<0.05).
conclusionsThe STANDING algorithm demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy and a very high negative predictive value for central vertigo across EDs and appears to be associated with improved specificity, reduced use of NCCT and shorter LOS compared with 'usual care'.
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.