ReviewFrontiers in neurology
Expanded National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and posterior circulation-specific stroke scales help address assessment blind spots in posterior circulation ischemic stroke.
Review in Frontiers in neurology. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale is the most widely used bedside scale for assessing neurological deficit severity in acute stroke and guiding early clinical decision-making. However, it has important limitations in posterior circulation stroke, particularly in cases involving the brainstem and cerebellum. Because posterior circulation ischemic stroke often presents with vertigo, nystagmus, truncal ataxia, bulbar dysfunction, and other cranial nerve-related symptoms, the conventional National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale may underestimate the initial severity of neurological impairment. This under-recognition can delay escalation of diagnostic evaluation and compromise prognostic stratification. This review specifically focuses on posterior circulation ischemic stroke because currently available posterior circulation-oriented derivatives of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale have been developed and clinically evaluated mainly in ischemic stroke cohorts. Recent studies suggest that the expanded National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale improves sensitivity to posterior circulation deficits missed by the conventional scale, whereas posterior circulation-specific tools such as the Posterior National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and the Peoria Posterior Fossa Stroke Scale may further improve structured bedside assessment and prognostic stratification. Nevertheless, the evidence base remains limited by the small number of validation studies, lack of large multicenter external validation, and incomplete standardization of item definitions and scoring procedures. Future studies should focus on rigorous validation, standardization, and integration of these scales with imaging and clinical workflow to improve recognition and risk assessment in posterior circulation ischemic stroke.
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.