SynthesisJournal of the American Heart Association2026
Stroke Scales for Large Vessel Occlusion in the Prehospital Emergency Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Heart Association, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion (LVO) is life threatening. Endovascular therapy has improved outcomes, but adoption of prehospital LVO screening tools by emergency medical services varies, and evidence on diagnostic accuracy and utility remains limited. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy and clinical utility of prehospital LVO screening scales applied by emergency medical services.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective or retrospective cohorts and randomized trials with sufficient data to construct 2×2 tables. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Ichushi Web (Japan Medical Abstracts Society database) were searched for English and Japanese articles from October 2016 to July 2024. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled using a bivariate random-effects model. Certainty of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, and decision curve analysis was applied at assumed LVO prevalences (5%, 10%, 20%).
resultsForty-three studies met inclusion criteria, and meta-analyses included 8 tools. The Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation score (≥5) showed pooled sensitivity of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.68-0.81) and specificity of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.68-0.84). Field Assessment Stroke Triage for Emergency Destination (≥4) demonstrated sensitivity of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.61-0.78) and specificity of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.64-0.83). Both tools had moderate certainty of evidence, and decision curve analysis showed greater net benefit for Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation and Field Assessment Stroke Triage for Emergency Destination across prevalence scenarios.
conclusionsRapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation and Field Assessment Stroke Triage for Emergency Destination provide moderate diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility for prehospital triage of LVO stroke, supporting their integration into emergency medical services protocols and need for further validation.
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.