This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Objective To determine the interrater variability for TIA diagnostic agreement among expert clinicians (neurologists/stroke physicians), administrative data, and nonspecialists.
Methods We performed a meta-analysis of studies from January 1984 to January 2019 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed. Two reviewers independently screened for eligible studies and extracted interrater variability measurements using Cohen's kappa scores to assess diagnostic agreement.
Results Nineteen original studies consisting of 19,421 patients were included. Expert clinicians demonstrate good agreement for TIA diagnosis (κ = 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.62–0.81). Interrater variability between clinicians' TIA diagnosis and administrative data also demonstrated good agreement (κ = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.62–0.74). There was moderate agreement (κ = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.22–0.61) between referring clinicians and clinicians at TIA clinics receiving the referrals. Sixty percent of 748 patient referrals to TIA clinics were TIA mimics.
Conclusions Overall agreement between expert clinicians was good for TIA diagnosis, although variation still existed for a sizeable proportion of cases. Diagnostic agreement for TIA decreased among nonspecialists. The substantial number of patients being referred to TIA clinics with other (often neurologic) diagnoses was large, suggesting that clinicians, who are proficient in managing TIAs and their mimics, should run TIA clinics.
Footnotes
Funding information and disclosures are provided at the end of the article. Full disclosure form information provided by the authors is available with the full text of this article at Neurology.org/cp.
- Received October 28, 2019.
- Accepted January 7, 2020.
- © 2020 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
The Nerve!: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.