Ekaterina Bakradze1, Ava L Liberman2. 1. The Saul R. Korey Department of Neurology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, 3316 Rochambeau Avenue, 4th Floor, Bronx, NY, 10467, USA. ebakradz@Montefiore.org. 2. The Saul R. Korey Department of Neurology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, 3316 Rochambeau Avenue, 4th Floor, Bronx, NY, 10467, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: 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. RECENT FINDINGS: 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.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: 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. RECENT FINDINGS: 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 strokepatients 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.
Authors: Shreyansh Shah; Marie Luby; Karen Poole; Teresa Morella; Elizabeth Keller; Richard T Benson; John K Lynch; Zurab Nadareishvili; Amie W Hsia Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-05-13 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Bradford Winters; Jason Custer; Samuel M Galvagno; Elizabeth Colantuoni; Shruti G Kapoor; Heewon Lee; Victoria Goode; Karen Robinson; Atul Nakhasi; Peter Pronovost; David Newman-Toker Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Salvador Cruz-Flores; Alejandro Rabinstein; Jose Biller; Mitchell S V Elkind; Patrick Griffith; Philip B Gorelick; George Howard; Enrique C Leira; Lewis B Morgenstern; Bruce Ovbiagele; Eric Peterson; Wayne Rosamond; Brian Trimble; Amy L Valderrama Journal: Stroke Date: 2011-05-26 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Georgios Tsivgoulis; Ramin Zand; Aristeidis H Katsanos; Nitin Goyal; Ken Uchino; Jason Chang; Efthimios Dardiotis; Jukka Putaala; Anne W Alexandrov; Marc D Malkoff; Andrei V Alexandrov Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: H Christian Schumacher; Brian T Bateman; Bernadette Boden-Albala; Mitchell F Berman; J P Mohr; Ralph L Sacco; John Pile-Spellman Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2007-05-03 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Matthias Wendt; Martin Ebinger; Alexander Kunz; Michal Rozanski; Carolin Waldschmidt; Joachim E Weber; Benjamin Winter; Peter M Koch; Christian H Nolte; Sabine Hertel; Tim Ziera; Heinrich J Audebert Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-08-06 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Daniel R Murphy; Louis Wu; Eric J Thomas; Samuel N Forjuoh; Ashley N D Meyer; Hardeep Singh Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-08-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ava L Liberman; Babak B Navi; Charles C Esenwa; Cenai Zhang; Justin Song; Natalie T Cheng; Daniel L Labovitz; Hooman Kamel; Alexander E Merkler Journal: Stroke Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Jacqueline A Griffin; Kevin Carr; Kerrin Bersani; Nicholas Piniella; Daniel Motta-Calderon; Maria Malik; Alison Garber; Kumiko Schnock; Ronen Rozenblum; David W Bates; Jeffrey L Schnipper; Anuj K Dalal Journal: Diagnosis (Berl) Date: 2021-08-23