| Literature DB >> 23950994 |
Shengyun Chen1, Haixin Sun, Yanni Lei, Ding Gao, Yan Wang, Yilong Wang, Yong Zhou, Anxin Wang, Wenzhi Wang, Xingquan Zhao.
Abstract
BACKGROUND ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23950994 PMCID: PMC3737357 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070742
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1The flow chart of the method.
The diagnosis of LAPSS and the clinical diagnosis.
| The diagnosis of LAPSS | The clinical diagnosis | Total (No.) | |
| Stroke (No.) | Non-stroke (No.) | ||
| Stroke | 782 | 13 | 795 |
| Non-stroke | 215 | 120 | 335 |
| Total | 997 | 133 | 1130 |
The diagnostic values of the LAPSS.
| Diagnostic values | LPASS | LAPSS (excluded the age item) |
| Sensitivity | 78.44%(75.88–80.99) | 82.95% (80.61–85.28) |
| Specificity | 90.22% (85.18–95.27) | 90.22% (85.18–95.27) |
| Accuracy,% | 79.82% (77.48–82.16) | 83.80% (81.66–85.95) |
| Youden’s index, YI | 0.69 (0.63–0.74) | 0.73 (0.68–0.79) |
| Odds product, OP | 33.57 | 44.90 |
| Positive predictive value, PPV | 98.36% (97.48–99.25) | 98.45% (97.62–99.29) |
| Positive likelihood ratio, PLR | 8.02 (4.78–13.46) | 8.49(5.06–14.23) |
| Negative predictive value, NPV | 35.82% (30.69–40.96) | 41.38% (35.71–47.05) |
| Negative likelihood ratio, NLR | 0.24(0.21–0.27) | 0.19(0.16–0.22) |
Values in parentheses are 95% CIs.
Analysis between the individual items of LAPSS and the false negative stroke patients.
| No. (%) the false negative stroke patients | |||
| The No. of the false negative stroke patients | 215 | ||
| The individual items for LAPSS | |||
| Age>45 years. | No | 45(20.9%) | |
| History of seizures or epilepsy absent? | No | 0 | |
| Symptom duration less than 24 hours? | No | 17(7.9%) | |
| At baseline, patient is not wheelchair bound or bedridden | No | 19(8.9%) | |
| Blood glucose between 60 and 400 mg/dl? | No | 0 | |
| Facial paralysis or arm strength weakness | No | 134(62.3%) | |
The Comparison about validation of the LAPSS in different studies.
| Studies | N | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy | PPV | Positive LR | NPV | Negative LR |
| Kidwel et al 8 | 206 | 91%(76–98) | 97% (93–99) | 96%(92–98) | 86%(70–95) | 31 (16–147) | 98% 95–99) | 0.09 (0–0.21) |
| Bray et al 9 | 100 | 78% 67–87) | 85% (65–95) | 80% | 93% (83–98) | 5.27 2.16–13.13) | 59% 42–74) | 0.26 (0,16–0.4) |
| Bergs et al 10 | 31 | 74% 54–94) | 83% (62–100) | 77% (63–92) | 88% (71–100) | 4.42 (1.21–16.12) | 67% (43–91) | 0.32 (0.14–0.70) |
| Our study | 1130 | 78.44%(75.88–80.99) | 90.22%(85.18–95.27) | 79.82%(77.48–82.16) | 98.36%(97.48–99.25) | 8.02(4.78–13.46) | 35.82%(30.69–40.96) | 0.24(0.21–0.27) |
Values in parentheses are 95% CIs. PPV = Positive predictive value; NPV = negative predictive value; LR = likelihood ratio.