ReviewCureus2025
Accuracy of First-Line Tests for Posterior Circulation Stroke in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Posterior circulation stroke (PCS) presents a high-risk diagnostic challenge in the emergency department (ED) due to its nonspecific symptoms and frequent overlap with benign vestibular conditions. Accurate, rapid identification is essential but often elusive. This scoping review aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of six bedside tools commonly used to detect PCS in the ED: clinical HINTS (head impulse, nystagmus, test of skew) examination (cHINTS); video-oculography HINTS (vHINTS); HINTS Plus (HINTS+); early MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging (MRI-DWI); ABCD2 (age, blood pressure, clinical features, duration of symptoms, diabetes status) score and the Gait-Truncal Instability (GTI) test. Following the Arksey and O'Malley framework, we systematically searched PubMed and Scopus for studies reporting accuracy data on these tests in patients presenting with suspected PCS or acute vestibular syndrome (AVS). Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts. Extracted data included study design, diagnostic modality, clinician expertise, and sensitivity/specificity metrics. Of 106 initial studies, 22 met the inclusion criteria. Most (82%) were published between 2020 and 2024 and included 16 prospective studies, 4 retrospective studies, 1 case series, and 1 randomized comparison. Accuracy data were reported for cHINTS (n=16), vHINTS (n=9), HINTS+ (n=3), MRI-DWI (n=2), ABCD2 (n=3), and GTI (n=3). Reported sensitivities and specificities varied widely across tools. Notably, 71% of HINTS-based exams were performed by neurologists or neuro-otologists. While cHINTS, HINTS+, and MRI-DWI demonstrate high sensitivity in selected settings, real-world performance in EDs is inconsistent and likely limited by variable clinician training and study methodology. These findings highlight the urgent need for pragmatic, ED-appropriate diagnostic pathways validated in frontline care environments.
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.