This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Objective: We hypothesized that trainees would perform better using a hypothesis-driven rather than a traditional screening approach to the neurologic examination.
Methods: We randomly assigned 16 medical students to perform screening examinations of all major aspects of neurologic function or hypothesis-driven examinations focused on aspects suggested by the history. Each student examined 4 patients, 2 of whom had focal deficits. Outcomes of interest were the correct identification of patients with focal deficits, number of specific deficits detected, and examination duration. Outcomes were assessed by an investigator blinded to group assignments. The McNemar test was used to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the 2 examination methods.
Results: Sensitivity was higher with hypothesis-driven examinations than with screening examinations (78% vs 56%; p = 0.046), although specificity was lower (71% vs 100%; p = 0.046). The hypothesis-driven group identified 61% of specific examination abnormalities, whereas the screening group identified 53% (p = 0.008). Median examination duration was 1 minute shorter in the hypothesis-driven group (7.0 minutes vs 8.0 minutes; p = 0.13).
Conclusions: In this randomized trial comparing 2 methods of neurologic examination, a hypothesis-driven approach resulted in greater sensitivity and a trend toward faster examinations, at the cost of lower specificity, compared with the traditional screening approach. Our findings suggest that a hypothesis-driven approach may be superior when the history is concerning for an acute focal neurologic process.
GLOSSARY
- IQR=
- interquartile range;
- UCSF=
- University of California, San Francisco
Footnotes
-
Study funding: Supported by the UCSF Academy of Medical Educators Innovation Fund (grant 140).
-
Editorial, page 1328
- Received February 13, 2011.
- Accepted April 19, 2011.
- Copyright © 2011 by AAN Enterprises, Inc.
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
