Evidence Hub

An assessment of the cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance, including diffusion-weighted imaging, in patients with transient ischaemic attack and minor stroke: a systematic review, meta-analysis and economic evaluation

Joanna Marguerite Wardlaw, Miriam G. Brazzelli, Héctor Miranda, Francesca M. Chappell, Paul McNamee, Graham Scotland, Zahidul Quayyum, Duncan Martin et al.

Health Technology Assessment, 2014

30,558 participants · 83 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Patients with transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or minor stroke need rapid treatment of risk factors to prevent recurrent stroke. ABCD2 score or magnetic resonance diffusion-weighted brain imaging (MR DWI) may help assessment and treatment.

OBJECTIVES

Is MR with DWI cost-effective in stroke prevention compared with computed tomography (CT) brain scanning in all patients, in specific subgroups or as 'one-stop' brain-carotid imaging? What is the current UK availability of services for stroke prevention?

DATA SOURCES

Published literature; stroke registries, audit and randomised clinical trials; national databases; survey of UK clinical and imaging services for stroke; expert opinion.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of published/unpublished data. Decision-analytic model of stroke prevention including on a 20-year time horizon including nine representative imaging scenarios.

RESULTS

The pooled recurrent stroke rate after TIA (53 studies, 30,558 patients) is 5.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.9% to 5.9%] by 7 days, and 6.7% (5.2% to 8.7%) at 90 days. ABCD2 score does not identify patients with key stroke causes or identify mimics: 66% of specialist-diagnosed true TIAs and 35-41% of mimics had an ABCD2 score of ≥ 4; 20% of true TIAs with ABCD2 score of 1 week after symptoms to diagnose haemorrhage; strategies that triaged patients with low ABCD2 scores for slow investigation or treated DWI-negative patients as non-TIA/minor stroke prevented fewer…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 30,558 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free