-
Multicenter Study
Effectiveness and reliability of the 4-step STANDING algorithm performed by emergency interns and seniors for predicting central causes of vertigo.
- Camille Gerlier, Audrey Fels, Hélène Vitaux, Carole Mousset, Alberto Perugini, Gilles Chatellier, and Olivier Ganansia.
- Department of Emergency, Paris Saint Joseph Hospital Group, Paris, France.
- Acad Emerg Med. 2023 May 1; 30 (5): 487500487-500.
BackgroundFor emergency physicians (EPs), acute vertigo is a challenging complaint and learning a reliable clinical approach is needed. STANDING is a four-step bedside algorithm that requires (1) identifying spontaneous nystagmus with Frenzel glasses or, alternatively, a positional nystagmus; (2) characterizing the nystagmus direction; (3) assessing the vestibuloocular reflex (head impulse test); and (4) assessing the gait. The objective was to determine its accuracy for diagnosing central vertigo when using by naïve examiners as such as interns and its agreement with senior EPs.MethodsThis was a prospective 1-year diagnostic cohort study among patients with vertigo, vestibulovisual symptoms, or postural symptoms seen by 20 interns trained in the four-step examination. The algorithm was performed first by an intern and second by a senior EP and categorized as either worrisome when indicating a central diagnosis and benign or inconclusive when indicating a peripheral diagnosis. The reference test was diffusion-weighted brain magnetic resonance imaging.ResultsAmong 312 patients included, 57 had a central diagnosis including 33 ischemic strokes (10.5%). The main etiology was benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (32.7%). The likelihood ratios were 4.63 and 10.33 for a worrisome STANDING, 0.09 and 0.01 for a benign STANDING, and 0.21 and 0.35 for an inconclusive STANDING, for interns and senior EPs, respectively. The algorithm showed sensitivities of 84.8% (95% CI 75.6%-93.9%) and 89.8% (95% CI 82.1%-97.5%), negative predictive values of 96.2% (95% CI 93.7%-98.6%) and 97.5% (95% CI 95.5%-99.5%), specificities of 88.9% (95% CI 85.1%-92.8%) and 91.3% (95% CI 87.8%-94.8%), and positive predictive values of 64.1% (95% CI 53.5%-74.8%) and 70.7% (95% CI 60.4%-81.0%), respectively. The agreement between interns and senior EPs was very substantial (B-statistic coefficient: 0.77) and almost perfect for each step: (1) 0.87, (2) 0.98, (3) 0.95, and (4) 0.99.ConclusionsWith a single training session, the algorithm reached high accuracy and reliability for ruling out central causes of vertigo in the hands of both novices and experienced EPs. A future multicenter randomized controlled trial should further its impact on unnecessary neuroimaging use and patient's satisfaction.© 2023 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.