Evidence Hub

Predictive values of referrals for transient ischaemic attack from first-contact health care: a systematic review

Kandiyali R, Lasserson DS, Whiting P, Richards A, Mant J

The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2017

15 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Over 150 000 cases of suspected transient ischaemic attack (TIA) are referred to outpatient clinics in England each year. The majority of referrals are made by GPs.

AIM: This study aimed to identify how many patients referred to a TIA clinic actually have TIA (that is, calculate the positive predictive value [PPV] of first-contact healthcare referral) and to record the alternative diagnoses in patients without TIA, in order to determine the optimal service model for patients with suspected TIA.

DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of TIA clinic referrals from first-contact health professionals (GPs and emergency department [ED] doctors) was undertaken.

METHOD: Four databases were searched using terms for TIA and diagnostic accuracy. Data on the number of patients referred to a TIA clinic who actually had a TIA (PPVs) were extracted. Frequencies of differential diagnoses were recorded, where reported. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.

RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included and reported sufficient information on referrals from GPs and ED doctors to derive PPVs (n = 15 935 referrals). PPVs for TIA ranged from 12.9% to 72.5%. A formal meta-analysis was not conducted due to heterogeneity across studies. Of those not diagnosed with TIA, approximately half of the final diagnoses were of neurological or cardiovascular conditions.

CONCLUSION: This study highlights the variation in prevalence of true vascular events in patients referred to TIA…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, 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: 15 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