The Validity of Clinical Scoring in the Diagnosis of Stroke Subtype: Validation Study

IF 1.8 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Patient Related Outcome Measures Pub Date : 2022-10-01 DOI:10.2147/PROM.S374473
B. Mekonnen, M. Kebede
{"title":"The Validity of Clinical Scoring in the Diagnosis of Stroke Subtype: Validation Study","authors":"B. Mekonnen, M. Kebede","doi":"10.2147/PROM.S374473","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background The gold standard for distinguishing stroke subtype is non-contrast CT. However, it’s still prohibitively expensive and out of reach for the majority of recourse-constrained settings. Clinically, not all patients will have a definite diagnosis of hemorrhagic/ischemic stroke. To overcome these challenges and improve clinical bedside diagnosis, clinical stroke scores for stroke subtypes have been developed and recommended to be used in the absence of appropriate imaging modality. Methods We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study among stroke patients to compare the accuracy of level of clinical stroke score methods in differentiating stroke type with CT. it was conducted on 140 people at MTU teaching hospital in Bench-Sheko Zone, South-west Ethiopia. Data were collected using check list. Analysis of the data was done using SPSS version 24. Results Our result revealed an incidence of hemorrhagic stroke were 50%, ischemic stroke were 48.6% by CT evaluation. Specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and the overall accuracy of Siriraj stroke score for differentiation of hemorrhage from ischemic stroke were 68.6%, 83.9%, 74.6%, 79.5%, and 82% respectively, the Guys score were 89.7%, 47.8%, 73.3%, 74.5% and 74.5% respectively and while the Bensson score were 88.6%, 35.3%, 75%, 58.5%, and 62.3% respectively. Conclusion We conclude that Siriraj stroke score showed good sensitivity and fair overall accuracy for hemorrhagic stroke even if it had poor specificity.","PeriodicalId":19747,"journal":{"name":"Patient Related Outcome Measures","volume":"13 1","pages":"209 - 219"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient Related Outcome Measures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S374473","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background The gold standard for distinguishing stroke subtype is non-contrast CT. However, it’s still prohibitively expensive and out of reach for the majority of recourse-constrained settings. Clinically, not all patients will have a definite diagnosis of hemorrhagic/ischemic stroke. To overcome these challenges and improve clinical bedside diagnosis, clinical stroke scores for stroke subtypes have been developed and recommended to be used in the absence of appropriate imaging modality. Methods We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study among stroke patients to compare the accuracy of level of clinical stroke score methods in differentiating stroke type with CT. it was conducted on 140 people at MTU teaching hospital in Bench-Sheko Zone, South-west Ethiopia. Data were collected using check list. Analysis of the data was done using SPSS version 24. Results Our result revealed an incidence of hemorrhagic stroke were 50%, ischemic stroke were 48.6% by CT evaluation. Specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and the overall accuracy of Siriraj stroke score for differentiation of hemorrhage from ischemic stroke were 68.6%, 83.9%, 74.6%, 79.5%, and 82% respectively, the Guys score were 89.7%, 47.8%, 73.3%, 74.5% and 74.5% respectively and while the Bensson score were 88.6%, 35.3%, 75%, 58.5%, and 62.3% respectively. Conclusion We conclude that Siriraj stroke score showed good sensitivity and fair overall accuracy for hemorrhagic stroke even if it had poor specificity.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
临床评分在脑卒中亚型诊断中的有效性:验证研究
背景无对比CT是区分脑卒中亚型的金标准。然而,对于大多数资源受限的设置来说,它仍然非常昂贵,并且遥不可及。临床上,并非所有患者都能明确诊断出出血性/缺血性脑卒中。为了克服这些挑战并改善临床床边诊断,卒中亚型的临床卒中评分已经被开发出来,并建议在缺乏适当成像方式的情况下使用。方法对脑卒中患者进行前瞻性横断面研究,比较临床脑卒中评分方法水平与CT鉴别脑卒中分型的准确性。该研究在埃塞俄比亚西南部Bench-Sheko区的MTU教学医院对140人进行。采用核对表法收集数据。数据分析使用SPSS version 24进行。结果CT显示出血性脑卒中发生率为50%,缺血性脑卒中发生率为48.6%。Siriraj卒中评分鉴别出血与缺血性卒中的特异性、敏感性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值和总体准确率分别为68.6%、83.9%、74.6%、79.5%和82%,Guys评分分别为89.7%、47.8%、73.3%、74.5%和74.5%,Bensson评分分别为88.6%、35.3%、75%、58.5%和62.3%。结论:尽管Siriraj卒中评分的特异性较差,但它对出血性卒中具有良好的敏感性和总体准确性。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Patient Related Outcome Measures
Patient Related Outcome Measures HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
自引率
4.80%
发文量
27
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Practices for Reporting Scale Structure and Summarizing Scores in Studies Using FAMCARE Scale to Assess Caregiver Satisfaction with Cancer Care: A Scoping Review. Development and Content Validation of the Patient's Qualitative Assessment of Treatment - Real-World (PQAT-RW): An Instrument to Evaluate Benefits and Disadvantages of Treatments in Real-World Settings. Exploring Barriers to Effective COVID-19 Risk Mitigation, Recovery, and Chronic Disease Self-Management: A Qualitative Multilevel Perspective. Ultra-Low Frequency Transmitted Ultrasound Breast Imaging vs DBT (Digital Breast Tomosynthesis): A Patient-Reported Outcome Study. Systematic Literature Review of Studies Reporting Measures of Functional Outcome or Quality of Life in People with Negative Symptoms of Schizophrenia.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1