What does this research mean for the field?

The TriAGe+ score demonstrates superior diagnostic accuracy compared to the Sudbury score for predicting stroke in emergency department patients presenting with acute dizziness or vertigo. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To comparatively evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the TriAGe+ and Sudbury clinical risk scores for predicting stroke among patients presenting to the emergency department with acute dizziness or vertigo.

September 2, 2026Medical Journal of Western Black SeaOpen Access

Comparison of the TriAGe+ and Sudbury scores for stroke prediction in acute vertigo in the emergency department: A retrospective analysis

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

VÖVildan Özer OBOzlem Bulbul

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Retrospective study finds superior stroke prediction with the TriAGe+ score over the Sudbury score in acute vertigo, suggesting improved risk stratification in emergency departments.

Key Points

To comparatively evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the TriAGe+ and Sudbury clinical risk scores for predicting stroke among patients presenting to the emergency department with acute dizziness or vertigo.
Conducted a single-center retrospective analysis of 256 adult patients presenting with acute vertigo or dizziness between 2020 and 2025 (128 stroke cases, 128 non-stroke controls).
Compared the diagnostic accuracy of the TriAGe+ and Sudbury scores using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and the DeLong test.
The TriAGe+ score exhibited superior overall diagnostic performance compared to the Sudbury score (AUC 0.898 vs. 0.837; ΔAUC = 0.061; p = 0.005).
At an optimal cutoff of ≥7, the TriAGe+ score yielded 75.0% sensitivity (95% CI: 66.6–82.2) and 83.6% specificity (95% CI: 76.0–89.5), whereas the Sudbury score yielded 78.9% sensitivity (95% CI: 70.8–85.6) and 74.2% specificity (95% CI: 65.7–81.5).
A TriAGe+ score cutoff of ≥5 demonstrated strong rule-out utility with a negative likelihood ratio of 0.09 (95% CI: 0.04–0.18), while a score of ≥10 achieved 100% specificity (95% CI: 97.2–100.0) and 100% positive predictive value (95% CI: 92.6–100.0).

Cite This Study

Özer et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a97e25ec562ede874ec6724 https://doi.org/10.29058/mjwbs.1885658

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

September 2, 2026Medical Journal of Western Black SeaOpen Access

Comparison of the TriAGe+ and Sudbury scores for stroke prediction in acute vertigo in the emergency department: A retrospective analysis

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

VÖVildan Özer OBOzlem Bulbul

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Retrospective study finds superior stroke prediction with the TriAGe+ score over the Sudbury score in acute vertigo, suggesting improved risk stratification in emergency departments.

Key Points

To comparatively evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the TriAGe+ and Sudbury clinical risk scores for predicting stroke among patients presenting to the emergency department with acute dizziness or vertigo.
Conducted a single-center retrospective analysis of 256 adult patients presenting with acute vertigo or dizziness between 2020 and 2025 (128 stroke cases, 128 non-stroke controls).
Compared the diagnostic accuracy of the TriAGe+ and Sudbury scores using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and the DeLong test.
The TriAGe+ score exhibited superior overall diagnostic performance compared to the Sudbury score (AUC 0.898 vs. 0.837; ΔAUC = 0.061; p = 0.005).
At an optimal cutoff of ≥7, the TriAGe+ score yielded 75.0% sensitivity (95% CI: 66.6–82.2) and 83.6% specificity (95% CI: 76.0–89.5), whereas the Sudbury score yielded 78.9% sensitivity (95% CI: 70.8–85.6) and 74.2% specificity (95% CI: 65.7–81.5).
A TriAGe+ score cutoff of ≥5 demonstrated strong rule-out utility with a negative likelihood ratio of 0.09 (95% CI: 0.04–0.18), while a score of ≥10 achieved 100% specificity (95% CI: 97.2–100.0) and 100% positive predictive value (95% CI: 92.6–100.0).

Cite This Study

Özer et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a97e25ec562ede874ec6724 https://doi.org/10.29058/mjwbs.1885658

Also Consider

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

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark