ArticleEuropean stroke journal2026
Focused cardiac ultrasound conducted by neurologists in patients with stroke: A validation study.
Article in European stroke journal, 2026. 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
27 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionFocused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) has a high diagnostic yield and a rapid theoretical learning curve. FoCUS can be applied in stroke assessments performed by stroke neurologists when a cardioembolic stroke is suspected. PATIENTS AND
methodsAn international multicenter, prospective validation study was conducted to assess neurologists' ability to perform FoCUS. The FoCUS examination was defined as a simplified 2D transthoracic echocardiography. Neurologists and cardiologists performed the FoCUS independently and blinded. A twenty-question test evaluated neurologists' ability to recognize sources of cardioembolic stroke from recorded FoCUS studies.
resultsA total of 432 paired studies involving 216 patients were conducted across 11 centers. No significant differences were found between neurologists and cardiologists in detecting: Left Ventricle (LV) dysfunction (7.4% vs 7.9%, p = 0.834), LV dilation (2.8% vs 2.3%, p = 0.766), VC collapsibility (7.2% vs 9.1%, p = 0.501), Right Ventricle dysfunction (0.9% vs 0.9%, p = 0.999), and pericardial effusion (0.5% vs 1.9%, p = 0.212). Cohen Kappa showed substantial agreement for LV dysfunction (0.640), moderate for LV dilation (0.589), and fair for VC collapsibility (0.226). Neurologists demonstrated 93.82% sensitivity and 92.92% specificity for detecting embolic sources. Success rate for LV akinesia was 88% (16/18), LV dysfunction 83% (15/18), complex aortic plaque 88% (16/18), and mitral stenosis 55% (10/18). DISCUSSION AND
conclusionProperly trained neurologists can reliably perform FoCUS, particularly for assessing LV function and dilation, with better results in patients with favorable echocardiographic windows. While VC assessment requires further training, neurologists demonstrated high accuracy in identifying cardioembolic sources (over 90% of cases correctly identified). This study supports implementing standardized FoCUS training for neurologists through collaboration with cardiology specialists to enhance stroke diagnostics and management.
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.