A randomized trial of hypothesis-driven vs screening neurologic examination

Neurology

Volumn 77, Issue 14, 2011, Pages 1395-1400

  Kamel, Hooman ^a   Dhaliwal, G ^b   Navi, B B ^a   Pease, A R ^c,d   Shah, M ^a   Dhand, A ^a   Johnston, S C ^a   Josephson, S A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c SANTA CLARA VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BRAIN FUNCTION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; FEMALE; HEMIPARESIS; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS DRIVEN NEUROLOGIC EXAMINATION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MEDICAL HISTORY; MEDICAL STUDENT; NEUROLOGIC DISEASE; NEUROLOGIC EXAMINATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PARAPLEGIA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREENING; SEIZURE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; TROCHLEAR NERVE DISEASE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; MEDICAL EDUCATION; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STANDARD;

AGED; EDUCATION, MEDICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, NEUROLOGICAL; NERVOUS SYSTEM DISEASES; NEUROLOGIC EXAMINATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STUDENTS, MEDICAL;

EID: 82255182354     PISSN: 00283878     EISSN: 1526632X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182315249     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Moore FG, Chalk C. The essential neurologic examination: what should medical students be taught? Neurology 2009;72:2020-2023.
2. McCaig LF, Burt CW. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2002 emergency department summary. Adv Data 2004:1-34.
3. Glick TH. Toward a more efficient and effective neurologic examination for the 21st century. Eur J Neurol 2005; 12:994-997. (Pubitemid 41820055)
4. Hatala R, Norman GR, Brooks LR. Impact of a clinical scenario on accuracy of electrocardiogram interpretation. J Gen Intern Med 1999;14:126-129. (Pubitemid 29095930)
5. Yudkowsky R, Bordage G, Lowenstein T, et al. Residents anticipating, eliciting and interpreting physical findings. Med Educ 2006;40:1141-1142.
6. Yudkowsky R, Otaki J, Lowenstein T, et al. A hypothesisdriven physical examination learning and assessment procedure for medical students: initial validity evidence. Med Educ 2009;43:729-740.
7. Nor AM, Davis J, Sen B, et al. The Recognition of Stroke in the Emergency Room (ROSIER) scale: development and validation of a stroke recognition instrument. Lancet Neurol 2005;4:727-734. (Pubitemid 41457288)
8. Kothari R, Barsan W, Brott T, et al. Frequency and accuracy of prehospital diagnosis of acute stroke. Stroke 1995; 26:937-941.
9. Gelb DJ, Gunderson CH, Henry KA, et al. The neurology clerkship core curriculum. Neurology 2002;58:849-852. (Pubitemid 34242057)
10. Goldstein LB, Simel DL. Is this patient having a stroke? JAMA 2005;293:2391-2402. (Pubitemid 40684479)
11. Anderson NE, Mason DF, Fink JN, et al. Detection of focal cerebral hemisphere lesions using the neurological examination. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2005;76:545-549. (Pubitemid 40486581)
12. Weaver DF. A clinical examination technique for mild upper motor neuron paresis of the arm. Neurology 2000;54: 531-532. (Pubitemid 30078109)
13. Miller TM, Johnston SC. Should the Babinski sign be part of the routine neurologic examination? Neurology 2005; 65:1165-1168. (Pubitemid 41508204)
14. Sawyer RN Jr, Hanna JP, Ruff RL, et al. Asymmetry of forearm rolling as a sign of unilateral cerebral dysfunction. Neurology 1993;43:1596-1598. (Pubitemid 23230552)
15. Tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke rt-PA Stroke Study Group. N Engl J Med 1995; 333:1581-1587.
16. Hawass NE. Comparing the sensitivities and specificities of two diagnostic procedures performed on the same group of patients. Br J Radiol 1997;70:360-366.