Brandler Ethan S, Sharma Mohit, Sinert Richard H, Levine Steven R
From the Departments of Emergency Medicine (E.S.B., R.H.S., S.R.L.) and Neurology (M.S., S.R.L.), SUNY Downstate Medical Center & Kings County Hospital Center; and the Department of Internal Medicine (E.S.B.), SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY.
Neurology. 2014 Jun 17;82(24):2241-9. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000523. Epub 2014 May 21.
To identify and compare the operating characteristics of existing prehospital stroke scales to predict true strokes in the hospital.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases for articles that evaluated the performance of prehospital stroke scales. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. We abstracted the operating characteristics of published prehospital stroke scales and compared them statistically and graphically.
We retrieved 254 articles from MEDLINE, 66 articles from EMBASE, and 32 articles from CINAHL Plus database. Of these, 8 studies met all our inclusion criteria, and they studied Cincinnati Pre-Hospital Stroke Scale (CPSS), Los Angeles Pre-Hospital Stroke Screen (LAPSS), Melbourne Ambulance Stroke Screen (MASS), Medic Prehospital Assessment for Code Stroke (Med PACS), Ontario Prehospital Stroke Screening Tool (OPSS), Recognition of Stroke in the Emergency Room (ROSIER), and Face Arm Speech Test (FAST). Although the point estimates for LAPSS accuracy were better than CPSS, they had overlapping confidence intervals on the symmetric summary receiver operating characteristic curve. OPSS performed similar to LAPSS whereas MASS, Med PACS, ROSIER, and FAST had less favorable overall operating characteristics.
Prehospital stroke scales varied in their accuracy and missed up to 30% of acute strokes in the field. Inconsistencies in performance may be due to sample size disparity, variability in stroke scale training, and divergent provider educational standards. Although LAPSS performed more consistently, visual comparison of graphical analysis revealed that LAPSS and CPSS had similar diagnostic capabilities.
识别并比较现有的院前卒中量表的操作特征,以预测院内的真正卒中。
我们检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE和CINAHL数据库,查找评估院前卒中量表性能的文章。使用诊断准确性研究质量评估-2工具评估纳入研究的质量。我们提取了已发表的院前卒中量表的操作特征,并进行了统计和图形比较。
我们从MEDLINE检索到254篇文章,从EMBASE检索到66篇文章,从CINAHL Plus数据库检索到32篇文章。其中,8项研究符合我们所有的纳入标准,它们研究了辛辛那提院前卒中量表(CPSS)、洛杉矶院前卒中筛查量表(LAPSS)、墨尔本救护车卒中筛查量表(MASS)、卒中急救的医护人员院前评估量表(Med PACS)、安大略省院前卒中筛查工具(OPSS)、急诊室卒中识别量表(ROSIER)和面臂言语试验(FAST)。尽管LAPSS准确性的点估计值优于CPSS,但在对称的汇总受试者工作特征曲线上,它们的置信区间有重叠。OPSS的表现与LAPSS相似,而MASS、Med PACS、ROSIER和FAST的总体操作特征较差。
院前卒中量表的准确性各不相同,在现场会漏诊高达30%的急性卒中。性能不一致可能是由于样本量差异、卒中量表培训的变异性以及提供者教育标准的不同。尽管LAPSS表现更一致,但图形分析的视觉比较显示,LAPSS和CPSS具有相似的诊断能力。