↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic Error in Stroke—Reasons and Proposed Solutions

Overview of attention for article published in Current Atherosclerosis Reports, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
Title
Diagnostic Error in Stroke—Reasons and Proposed Solutions
Published in
Current Atherosclerosis Reports, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11883-018-0712-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ekaterina Bakradze, Ava L. Liberman

Abstract

We discuss the frequency of stroke misdiagnosis and identify subgroups of stroke at high risk for specific diagnostic errors. In addition, we review common reasons for misdiagnosis and propose solutions to decrease error. According to a recent report by the National Academy of Medicine, most people in the USA are likely to experience a diagnostic error during their lifetimes. Nearly half of such errors result in serious disability and death. Stroke misdiagnosis is a major health care concern, with initial misdiagnosis estimated to occur in 9% of all stroke patients in the emergency setting. Under- or missed diagnosis (false negative) of stroke can result in adverse patient outcomes due to the preclusion of acute treatments and failure to initiate secondary prevention strategies. On the other hand, the overdiagnosis of stroke can result in inappropriate treatment, delayed identification of actual underlying disease, and increased health care costs. Young patients, women, minorities, and patients presenting with non-specific, transient, or posterior circulation stroke symptoms are at increased risk of misdiagnosis. Strategies to decrease diagnostic error in stroke have largely focused on early stroke detection via bedside examination strategies and a clinical decision rules. Targeted interventions to improve the diagnostic accuracy of stroke diagnosis among high-risk groups as well as symptom-specific clinical decision supports are needed. There are a number of open questions in the study of stroke misdiagnosis. To improve patient outcomes, existing strategies to improve stroke diagnostic accuracy should be more broadly adopted and novel interventions devised and tested to reduce diagnostic errors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 24 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Computer Science 3 5%
Psychology 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 29 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 June 2021.
All research outputs
#5,481,409
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Current Atherosclerosis Reports
#273
of 768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,339
of 446,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Atherosclerosis Reports
#9
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 768 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 446,078 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.