Full text

Turn on search term navigation

© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.

Abstract

Background: The accuracy of diagnosing acute cerebrovascular disease via a teleneurology service and the characteristics of misdiagnosed patients are insufficiently known. Methods: A random sample (n = 1500) of all teleneurological consultations conducted between July 2015 and December 2017 was screened. Teleneurological diagnosis and hospital discharge diagnosis were compared. Diagnoses were then grouped into two main categories: cerebrovascular disease (CVD) and noncerebrovascular disease. Test characteristics were calculated. Results: Out of 1078 consultations, 52% (n = 561) had a final diagnosis of CVD. Patients with CVD could be accurately identified via teleneurological consultation (sensitivity 95.2%, 95% CI 93.2–96.8), but we observed a tendency towards false-positive diagnosis (specificity 77.4%, 95% CI 73.6–80.8). Characteristics of patients with a false-negative CVD diagnosis were similar to those of patients with a true-positive diagnosis, but patients with a false-negative CVD diagnosis had ischemic heart disease less frequently. In retrospect, one patient would have been considered a candidate for intravenous thrombolysis (0.2%). Conclusions: Teleneurological consultations are accurate for identifying patients with CVD, and there is a very low rate of missed candidates for thrombolysis. Apart from a lower prevalence of ischemic heart disease, characteristics of “stroke chameleons” were similar to those of correctly identified CVD patients.

Details

Title
Diagnostic Accuracy in Teleneurological Stroke Consultations
Author
Christina Verez Sola; Doroszewski, Eva  VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Jaschonek, Hannah; Gutschalk, Alexander
First page
1170
Publication year
2021
Publication date
2021
Publisher
MDPI AG
e-ISSN
20770383
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
ProQuest document ID
2521518082
Copyright
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.