Diagnostic Accuracy of Posterior Circulation Stroke by Paramedics: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Objective

This systematic review aims to identify the diagnostic accuracy of posterior circulation stroke (PCS) by paramedics and the causes and duration of delay in its recognition.

Methods

A systematic search using CINAHL Plus, MEDLINE, Scopus, and PubMed was performed. All databases were searched up to May 25, 2022. Studies were included where patients were adults, assessed by paramedics, and PCS was the primary diagnosis. Bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Effective Practice and Organization of Care tool. Results have been described by proportions, and both sensitivity calculations and subgroup analysis were performed utilizing MedCalc.

Results

A total of 797 titles/abstracts and a subsequent 87 full texts were screened, of which 15 were included. There were 5395 patients who were assessed by paramedics and had a confirmed diagnosis of PCS. Among five studies containing both true positive and false negative data, there were 98 (45.8%) true positives. PCS patients lost an average of 27 min (p < 0.001) compared to anterior stroke patients in the prehospital setting. One study revealed that educational intervention, including implementing the finger-to-nose test, increased the sensitivity for diagnosis from 45.8 to 74.1% (p = 0.039) and decreased the time from door to computed tomography from 62 to 41 min (p = 0.037).

Conclusion

There is a substantial lack of evidence regarding the diagnosis of PCS by paramedics. Despite the low quality of evidence available, overall, the sensitivity for paramedic PCS diagnosis appears to be poor. Further investigation is required into paramedics’ diagnosis of PCS and the use of educational interventions.

Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Registration Number: CRD42022324675.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Cody Logan for his illustration in this paper.

Author Contributions

All authors included in this manuscript meet the requirements for authorship as per the ICMJE recommendations.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

There are no sources of funding to report.