TY - JOUR
T1 - Interobserver agreement in ABCD scoring between non-stroke specialists and vascular neurologists following suspected TIA is only fair
AU - Kinsella, Justin A.
AU - Tobin, W. Oliver
AU - Cogan, Nicola
AU - McCabe, Dominick J.H.
N1 - Funding Information:
Dr Kinsella’s research is funded by the Stanley Thomas Johnson Foundation, and by unrestricted educational grant funding from Bayer Schering Ireland, Pfizer Ireland and Elitech UK. Dr Tobin’s research is funded by the IICN-Serono Fellowship programme, the Meath Foundation, the Lundbeck Neurosciences Bursary programme, and unrestricted educational grant funding from Merck Serono Ireland, Brennan and Company Ireland and Biogen Idec Ireland Limited. Dr McCabe supervised all the above research. No specific funding was sought or obtained for the completion of this study.
PY - 2011/6
Y1 - 2011/6
N2 - The appropriateness of use and accuracy of age, blood pressure, clinical features and duration of symptoms (ABCD) scoring by non-stroke specialists while risk-stratifying patients with suspected transient ischaemic attack (TIA) are unknown. We reviewed all available ABCD data from referrals to a specialist neurovascular clinic. ABCD scoring was defined as 'appropriate' in this study if an experienced vascular neurologist subsequently confirmed a clinical diagnosis of possible, probable or definite TIA, and 'inappropriate' if the patient had an alternative diagnosis or stroke. Interobserver agreement between the referring physician and the neurologist was calculated. One hundred and four patients had completed ABCD referral proformas available for analysis. Forty-five (43%) were deemed appropriate, and 59 (57%) inappropriate. In the entire dataset, the neurologist agreed with the referring physician's total ABCD score in only 42% of cases [κ = 0.28]. The two most unreliable components of the scoring system were clinical features [κ = 0.51], and duration of symptoms [κ = 0.48]. ABCD scoring by non-stroke specialists is frequently inappropriate and inaccurate in routine clinical practice, emphasising the importance of urgent specialist assessment of suspected TIA patients.
AB - The appropriateness of use and accuracy of age, blood pressure, clinical features and duration of symptoms (ABCD) scoring by non-stroke specialists while risk-stratifying patients with suspected transient ischaemic attack (TIA) are unknown. We reviewed all available ABCD data from referrals to a specialist neurovascular clinic. ABCD scoring was defined as 'appropriate' in this study if an experienced vascular neurologist subsequently confirmed a clinical diagnosis of possible, probable or definite TIA, and 'inappropriate' if the patient had an alternative diagnosis or stroke. Interobserver agreement between the referring physician and the neurologist was calculated. One hundred and four patients had completed ABCD referral proformas available for analysis. Forty-five (43%) were deemed appropriate, and 59 (57%) inappropriate. In the entire dataset, the neurologist agreed with the referring physician's total ABCD score in only 42% of cases [κ = 0.28]. The two most unreliable components of the scoring system were clinical features [κ = 0.51], and duration of symptoms [κ = 0.48]. ABCD scoring by non-stroke specialists is frequently inappropriate and inaccurate in routine clinical practice, emphasising the importance of urgent specialist assessment of suspected TIA patients.
KW - ABCD score
KW - Interobserver agreement
KW - Non-vascular neurologist
KW - Risk stratification
KW - Transient ischaemic attack
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79959828755&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79959828755&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00415-010-5870-3
DO - 10.1007/s00415-010-5870-3
M3 - Article
C2 - 21188409
AN - SCOPUS:79959828755
SN - 0340-5354
VL - 258
SP - 1001
EP - 1007
JO - Journal of Neurology
JF - Journal of Neurology
IS - 6
ER -