ArticleArchives of academic emergency medicine2025
Accuracy and Clinical Utility of Clinical Predictive Models for Identifying Dizziness with Central Causes; A Retrospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study.
Article in Archives of academic emergency medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Although several clinical prediction models (CPMs) have been developed for identifying acute dizziness with central causes, their application in clinical practice remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and clinical utility of four CPMs in identifying dizziness with central lesions. Methods: This single-center, retrospective, diagnostic accuracy study was conducted at the ED of Aomori Hospital, Japan, from April to March 2023. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of four risk stratification models (ABCD2, TriAGe+, PCI, and Sudbury) in predicting dizziness with central causes were evaluated considering the brain imaging (computed tomography (CT) scan and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)) findings, interpreted by a neurologist or neurosurgeon, as the gold standard. Calibration was evaluated visually using calibration plots. Additionally, analyses of efficacy, safety, and clinical utility using a decision curve were conducted. Results: Of the 3,606 patients identified, 2,958 with the mean age of 65.3 ± 16.4 (range: 15-97.) years were included in the final analysis (64.7% female). 155 (5.2 %) were diagnosed with central lesions. The AUROCs were 0.67 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.62-0.71) for ABCD2, 0.80 (95% CI: 0.76-0.84) for TriAGe+, 0.82 (0.78-0.86) for PCI, and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.82-0.88) for Sudbury. TriAGe+, PCI, and Sudbury demonstrated good calibration. Among these, the Sudbury model demonstrated the highest diagnostic efficiency, was the only model to meet safety criteria, and provided the highest net benefit in decision curve analysis, particularly at lower predicted prevalence thresholds. Conclusion: The TriAGe+, PCI, and Sudbury models demonstrated strong discriminatory performance and reliable calibration when applied during ED admission at a community hospital. Particularly, the Sudbury model may reduce false-negative outcomes for central lesions, thereby potentially minimizing the need for unnecessary neuroimaging in patients identified as low-risk.
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.