检测大面积脑血管闭塞的快速动脉闭塞评估(RACE)工具;系统回顾和元分析。

IF 2.9 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2023-11-14 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.22037/aaem.v12i1.2152
Iman Chehregani Rad, Amir Azimi
{"title":"检测大面积脑血管闭塞的快速动脉闭塞评估(RACE)工具;系统回顾和元分析。","authors":"Iman Chehregani Rad, Amir Azimi","doi":"10.22037/aaem.v12i1.2152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Large vessel occlusion (LVO) strokes are linked to higher mortality rates and a greater risk of long-term disability. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation (RACE) tool in detecting LVO through a systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search was conducted across online databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science, up to June 25th, 2023. Additionally, a manual search on Google and Google Scholar was performed to identify studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the RACE scale in detecting LVO among patients with stroke symptoms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data extracted from 43 studies were analyzed. The optimal cut-off points were determined to be 3 and 4, with a sensitivity of 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78, 0.91) and specificity of 0.57 (95% CI: 0.49, 0.67) for cut-off ≥3, and a sensitivity of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.70, 0.84) and specificity of 0.68 (95% CI: 0.59, 0.75) for cut-off ≥4. Subgroup meta-regression analysis revealed significant variations in sensitivity and specificity. RACE scale's sensitivity was significantly higher in LVO detection in suspected stroke cases, in pre-hospital settings, prospective design studies, and when considering both anterior and posterior occlusions for LVO definition. RACE scale's specificity was significantly higher when evaluating confirmed stroke cases, in-hospital settings, and considering only anterior occlusions for LVO definition and retrospective design studies. Notably, RACE exhibited higher sensitivity and specificity when utilized by neurologists and physicians compared to other emergency staff. Despite these variations, our study found comparable diagnostic accuracy across different conditions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A high level of evidence indicates that the RACE scale lacks promising diagnostic value for detection of LVOs. A sensitivity range of 0.69 to 0.86 is insufficient for a screening tool intended to aid in the diagnosis of strokes, considering the substantial morbidity and mortality associated with this condition.</p>","PeriodicalId":8146,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":"12 1","pages":"e10"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10757574/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation (RACE) Tool in Detecting Large Cerebral Vessel Occlusions; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Iman Chehregani Rad, Amir Azimi\",\"doi\":\"10.22037/aaem.v12i1.2152\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Large vessel occlusion (LVO) strokes are linked to higher mortality rates and a greater risk of long-term disability. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation (RACE) tool in detecting LVO through a systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search was conducted across online databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science, up to June 25th, 2023. Additionally, a manual search on Google and Google Scholar was performed to identify studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the RACE scale in detecting LVO among patients with stroke symptoms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data extracted from 43 studies were analyzed. The optimal cut-off points were determined to be 3 and 4, with a sensitivity of 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78, 0.91) and specificity of 0.57 (95% CI: 0.49, 0.67) for cut-off ≥3, and a sensitivity of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.70, 0.84) and specificity of 0.68 (95% CI: 0.59, 0.75) for cut-off ≥4. Subgroup meta-regression analysis revealed significant variations in sensitivity and specificity. RACE scale's sensitivity was significantly higher in LVO detection in suspected stroke cases, in pre-hospital settings, prospective design studies, and when considering both anterior and posterior occlusions for LVO definition. RACE scale's specificity was significantly higher when evaluating confirmed stroke cases, in-hospital settings, and considering only anterior occlusions for LVO definition and retrospective design studies. Notably, RACE exhibited higher sensitivity and specificity when utilized by neurologists and physicians compared to other emergency staff. Despite these variations, our study found comparable diagnostic accuracy across different conditions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A high level of evidence indicates that the RACE scale lacks promising diagnostic value for detection of LVOs. A sensitivity range of 0.69 to 0.86 is insufficient for a screening tool intended to aid in the diagnosis of strokes, considering the substantial morbidity and mortality associated with this condition.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8146,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"e10\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10757574/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v12i1.2152\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v12i1.2152","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:大血管闭塞(LVO)脑卒中与较高的死亡率和较高的长期残疾风险有关。本研究旨在通过系统综述和荟萃分析评估快速动脉闭塞评估(RACE)工具在检测大血管闭塞方面的诊断性能:对截至 2023 年 6 月 25 日的在线数据库(包括 PubMed、Embase、Scopus 和 Web of Science)进行了全面检索。此外,还在 Google 和 Google Scholar 上进行了人工搜索,以确定评估 RACE 量表在检测有卒中症状患者 LVO 方面诊断准确性的研究:结果:分析了从 43 项研究中提取的数据。最佳截断点被确定为 3 和 4,截断点≥3 的敏感性为 0.86(95% 置信区间 (CI):0.78, 0.91),特异性为 0.57(95% CI:0.49, 0.67);截断点≥4 的敏感性为 0.78(95% CI:0.70, 0.84),特异性为 0.68(95% CI:0.59, 0.75)。分组元回归分析显示,灵敏度和特异性存在显著差异。在疑似卒中病例的 LVO 检测、院前环境、前瞻性设计研究中,以及在 LVO 定义中同时考虑前部和后部闭塞时,RACE 量表的灵敏度明显更高。在评估确诊卒中病例、院内环境、仅考虑前部闭塞进行 LVO 定义以及回顾性设计研究中,RACE 量表的特异性明显更高。值得注意的是,与其他急诊人员相比,神经科医生和内科医生使用 RACE 时表现出更高的灵敏度和特异性。尽管存在这些差异,但我们的研究发现不同情况下的诊断准确性相当:高水平的证据表明,RACE 量表在检测 LVO 方面缺乏良好的诊断价值。考虑到脑卒中的发病率和死亡率较高,0.69 至 0.86 的灵敏度不足以作为辅助诊断脑卒中的筛查工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation (RACE) Tool in Detecting Large Cerebral Vessel Occlusions; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Introduction: Large vessel occlusion (LVO) strokes are linked to higher mortality rates and a greater risk of long-term disability. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation (RACE) tool in detecting LVO through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across online databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science, up to June 25th, 2023. Additionally, a manual search on Google and Google Scholar was performed to identify studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the RACE scale in detecting LVO among patients with stroke symptoms.

Results: Data extracted from 43 studies were analyzed. The optimal cut-off points were determined to be 3 and 4, with a sensitivity of 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78, 0.91) and specificity of 0.57 (95% CI: 0.49, 0.67) for cut-off ≥3, and a sensitivity of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.70, 0.84) and specificity of 0.68 (95% CI: 0.59, 0.75) for cut-off ≥4. Subgroup meta-regression analysis revealed significant variations in sensitivity and specificity. RACE scale's sensitivity was significantly higher in LVO detection in suspected stroke cases, in pre-hospital settings, prospective design studies, and when considering both anterior and posterior occlusions for LVO definition. RACE scale's specificity was significantly higher when evaluating confirmed stroke cases, in-hospital settings, and considering only anterior occlusions for LVO definition and retrospective design studies. Notably, RACE exhibited higher sensitivity and specificity when utilized by neurologists and physicians compared to other emergency staff. Despite these variations, our study found comparable diagnostic accuracy across different conditions.

Conclusion: A high level of evidence indicates that the RACE scale lacks promising diagnostic value for detection of LVOs. A sensitivity range of 0.69 to 0.86 is insufficient for a screening tool intended to aid in the diagnosis of strokes, considering the substantial morbidity and mortality associated with this condition.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
7.40%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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