Validation of Recognition of Stroke in the Emergency Room scale in Turkish population and comparison of its efficiency with Face-Arm-Speech Test

Q3 Health Professions
N. Şahin, Mehmet Okumuş, Isa Baspınar, Burak Demirci, A. Çelik
{"title":"Validation of Recognition of Stroke in the Emergency Room scale in Turkish population and comparison of its efficiency with Face-Arm-Speech Test","authors":"N. Şahin, Mehmet Okumuş, Isa Baspınar, Burak Demirci, A. Çelik","doi":"10.5603/DEMJ.A2021.0017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND: Various risk scores were developed to recognize acute stroke easily and to start treatment right away in the emergency departments. Although the Recognition of Stroke in the Emergency Room (ROSIER) score used for this purpose is indicated better than the other scoring systems, it is expressed that it will be able to have social differentiations. In this study, we targeted to research validation of the ROSIER scale and to compare its efficiency with Face-Arm-Speech Test (FAST), another stroke diagnosis method, for the patients who applied to the emergency department with the stroke or transient ischemic attack symptoms. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The patients who reported to the emergency department with the suggestive symptoms or findings of stroke and were above 18 years of age were included in the study. The study forms were filled out by the emergency medicine specialist or the senior emergency medical assistant after the patients were evaluated, and then they were consulted by the neurology specialist. The final diagnosis, which was established after the clinical evaluation and necessary imaging done by the neurology specialists, was accepted as a standard reference. RESULTS: A total of 335 patients, including 168 (50.1%) females, were included in the study. The sensitivity was 68.5%, specificity was 79.0%, Positive Predictive Value (PPV) was 78.7%, NPV (Negative Predictive Value) was 68.9%, and test validity was 73.4% for the ROSIER scale. For the FAST scale the sensitivity was 63.5%, specificity was 88.5%, PPV was 86.3%, NPV was 68.1%, and test validity was 75.2%. CONCLUSION: In the present study, it was seen that the ROSIER scale could be used in separating the patients with CVO (cerebrovascular accident) from the patients who applied with the similar clinical findings. However, FAST was superior because its specificity and PPV were higher and its practicability was easier than the ROSIER.","PeriodicalId":52339,"journal":{"name":"Disaster and Emergency Medicine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disaster and Emergency Medicine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5603/DEMJ.A2021.0017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Various risk scores were developed to recognize acute stroke easily and to start treatment right away in the emergency departments. Although the Recognition of Stroke in the Emergency Room (ROSIER) score used for this purpose is indicated better than the other scoring systems, it is expressed that it will be able to have social differentiations. In this study, we targeted to research validation of the ROSIER scale and to compare its efficiency with Face-Arm-Speech Test (FAST), another stroke diagnosis method, for the patients who applied to the emergency department with the stroke or transient ischemic attack symptoms. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The patients who reported to the emergency department with the suggestive symptoms or findings of stroke and were above 18 years of age were included in the study. The study forms were filled out by the emergency medicine specialist or the senior emergency medical assistant after the patients were evaluated, and then they were consulted by the neurology specialist. The final diagnosis, which was established after the clinical evaluation and necessary imaging done by the neurology specialists, was accepted as a standard reference. RESULTS: A total of 335 patients, including 168 (50.1%) females, were included in the study. The sensitivity was 68.5%, specificity was 79.0%, Positive Predictive Value (PPV) was 78.7%, NPV (Negative Predictive Value) was 68.9%, and test validity was 73.4% for the ROSIER scale. For the FAST scale the sensitivity was 63.5%, specificity was 88.5%, PPV was 86.3%, NPV was 68.1%, and test validity was 75.2%. CONCLUSION: In the present study, it was seen that the ROSIER scale could be used in separating the patients with CVO (cerebrovascular accident) from the patients who applied with the similar clinical findings. However, FAST was superior because its specificity and PPV were higher and its practicability was easier than the ROSIER.
土耳其人群急诊室脑卒中识别量表的验证及其与面臂言语测试的有效性比较
背景:制定了各种风险评分,以便于识别急性中风,并在急诊科立即开始治疗。尽管用于此目的的急诊室中风识别(ROSIER)评分比其他评分系统显示得更好,但它表明它将能够具有社会差异。在这项研究中,我们旨在对ROSIER量表进行研究验证,并将其与另一种中风诊断方法面臂言语测试(FAST)的有效性进行比较,以适用于有中风或短暂性脑缺血发作症状的急诊科患者。材料和方法:向急诊科报告有中风提示症状或发现的18岁以上的患者被纳入研究。研究表格由急诊医学专家或高级急诊医学助理在对患者进行评估后填写,然后由神经科专家进行咨询。最终诊断是在神经病学专家进行临床评估和必要的成像后确定的,被接受为标准参考。结果:共有335名患者,包括168名(50.1%)女性,被纳入研究。ROSIER量表的敏感性为68.5%,特异性为79.0%,阳性预测值(PPV)为78.7%,阴性预测值(NPV)为68.9%,测试有效性为73.4%。FAST量表的敏感性为63.5%,特异性为88.5%,PPV为86.3%,NPV为68.1%,测试有效性为75.2%。然而,FAST优于ROSIER,因为它的特异性和PPV更高,实用性也更容易。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Disaster and Emergency Medicine Journal
Disaster and Emergency Medicine Journal Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信