The validity of recognition of stroke in the emergency room (ROSIER) scale in the diagnosis of Iranian patients with acute ischemic stroke in the emergency department

• Main Authors: Mahdi Zangi, Somayeh Karimi, Sahar Mirbaha, Mehran Sotoodehnia, Fatemeh Rasooli, Alireza Baratloo
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2021-01-01
• Series: Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine
• Subjects: decision support techniques; emergency service; hospital; stroke
• Online Access: http://www.turkjemergmed.org/article.asp?issn=2452-2473;year=2021;volume=21;issue=1;spage=1;epage=5;aulast=Zangi
• ISSN: 2452-2473; 2452-2473

OBJECTIVES: In this study, we aimed to investigate the accuracy of recognition of stroke in the Emergency Room (ROSIER) Scale in the diagnosis of patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) transferred to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: The present study was a multicenter study. Records from patients suspected of stroke, who referred to the ED were reviewed. Demographic, clinical, and diagnostic data were extracted and then entered in checklists. ROSIER Scale was used to evaluate the possible diagnosis in this study. The definitive diagnosis of a stroke was made based on neurologist's assessment and clinical and neuroimaging findings, mainly brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was conducted for assessing the accuracy of ROSIER in discrimination of stroke. RESULTS: The data of 356 suspected stroke patients were analyzed. Of all, 186 patients (52.2%) were male, and the mean age was 65.2 (standard deviation = 14.0) years ranging from 26 to 95 years. One hundred and fifty-one patients (42.4%) had AIS based on the final diagnosis. The area under the ROC curve was 0.85. The best cutoff point for ROSIER scale was ≥1 with a sensitivity of 85.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 78.8, 90.6%) and specificity of 65.8% (95% CI: 58.9, 72.3%). CONCLUSION: Based on the findings, although the best cutoff point was the same as the original (derivation) study, its sensitivity (85.4% vs. 92%) and specificity (65.8% vs. 86%) were considerably lower.