Dataset Information

Prehospital stroke scales in urban environments: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To identify and compare the operating characteristics of existing prehospital stroke scales to predict true strokes in the hospital.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

SUBMITTER: Brandler ES

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4113467 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify, appraise and synthesise existing design evidence for inpatient stroke rehabilitation facilities; to identify impacts of these built environments on the outcomes and experiences of people recovering from stroke, their family/caregivers and staff.DesignA convergent segregated review design was used to conduct a systematic review.Data sourcesOvid MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched for articles published between January 2000 and November 2020.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesQualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies investigating the impact of the built environment of inpatient rehabilitation facilities on stroke survivors, their family/caregivers and/or staff.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors separately completed the title, abstract, full-text screening, data extraction and quality assessment. Extracted data were categorised according to the aspect of the built environment explored and the outcomes reported. These categories were used to structure a narrative synthesis of the results from all included studies.ResultsTwenty-four articles were included, most qualitative and exploratory. Half of the included articles investigated a particular aspect of the built environment, including environmental enrichment and communal areas (n=8), bedroom design (n=3) and therapy spaces (n=1), while the other half considered the environment in general. Findings related to one or more of the following outcome categories: (1) clinical outcomes, (2) patient activity, (3) patient well-being, (4) patient and/or staff safety and (5) clinical practice. Heterogeneous designs and variables of interest meant results could not be compared, but some repeated findings suggest that attractive and accessible communal areas are important for patient activity and well-being.ConclusionsStroke rehabilitation is a unique healthcare context where patient activity, practice and motivation are paramount. We found many evidence gaps that with more targeted research could better inform the design of rehabilitation spaces to optimise care.Prospero registration numberCRD42020158006.