PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 10, 2025British Journal of Community Nursing4 citations

BE-FAST vs FAST in prehospital stroke recognition: a systematic review

View Full Paper
MHMatthew HilditchUniversity of StavangerCBCharles J. BrandBureau of Plant IndustrySDShane DevlinUniversity College Dublin

Key Points

  • BE-FAST shows higher sensitivity for detecting stroke compared to FAST, yet lacks sufficient evidence for solid conclusions.
  • FAST has a sensitivity ranging from 64% to 97% and specificities from 13% to 76.9%, highlighting variability in performance.
  • The review analyzed existing literature to assess the diagnostic performance of FAST and BE-FAST in prehospital settings.
  • Both FAST and BE-FAST approach demonstrate reasonable effectiveness in stroke recognition, but their specificities remain low.

Abstract

Detecting acute ischaemic stroke in its early stages is critical for improving the patient's chances of a favorable outcome. While face, arm, speech, time (FAST) is the generally accepted tool for the prehospital screening of suspected stroke patients, it is proposed that the more extensive balance, eyes, face, arm, speech, time (BE-FAST) may improve stroke recognition. This systematic review compares the efficacy of FAST and BE-FAST in detecting acute stroke in prehospital settings. A systematic literature search was conducted across four databases including MEDLINE, ProQuest, CINAHL and PubMed. Included articles compared diagnostic performance of FAST and BE-FAST for ischaemic stroke recognition in the ambulance, or when used by emergency medical services. Only original research published in the English language was included. Sensitivities of FAST ranged from 64% to 97%, while specificities ranged from 13% to 76.9%, showing a wide variation across the studies. The only study that considered BE-FAST reported its sensitivity and specificity as 91% and 53%, respectively, compared to 76% and 68%, respectively, for FAST. There is limited data on the performance of BE-FAST in the prehospital setting. The findings of this systematic review suggest that both FAST and BE-FAST perform reasonably for prehospital stroke recognition, although specificity of these scales is generally low. BE-FAST may be more sensitive to detect stroke, but there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Hilditch et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68c1d5fe54b1d3bfb60f9177https://doi.org/10.12968/bjcn.2025.0119
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Enhancing Stroke Recognition: A Comparative Analysis of Balance and Eyes–Face, Arms, Speech, Time (BE-FAST) and Face, Arms, Speech, Time (FAST) in Identifying Posterior Circulation Strokes2024 · 5 citations
  2. 2A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing FAST and BEFAST in Acute Stroke Patients2022 · 53 citations
  3. 3Posterior Circulation Stroke2020 · 1 citations
  4. 4Does Use of the Recognition Of Stroke In the Emergency Room Stroke Assessment Tool Enhance Stroke Recognition by Ambulance Clinicians?2013 · 79 citations
  5. 5Poststroke Epilepsy: Occurrence and Predictors—A Long‐term Prospective Controlled Study (Akershus Stroke Study)2005 · 143 citations