Sensitivity, Specificity, and Diagnosting Value of Bahrudin’s Score in Diagnosing Stroke Compared to CT-Scan

Authors

  • Mochamad Bahrudin
  • Salsabilla Rihadatul Aisy

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22219/sm.Vol16.SMUMM2.15044

Keywords:

Bahrudin’s Score, CT-Scan, Stroke, Diagnostic Tool

Abstract

Stroke is an emergency situation leading to disability and death. Fast, precise, and easy diagnostic tools is needed as an substitute for CT-Scan, especially when CT-Scan is not available. This study is conducted to determined sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic value of Bahrudin’s Score compared to CT-Scan in diagnosing bleeding or infarct stroke. This research was conducted at Gambiran Kediri Hospital and Lamongan Muhammadiyah Hospital using 89 patients as samples. It was analyzed to define sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value,  positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, accuracy, reciever operating characteristic curve, and area under curve in order to define diagnostic value of Bahrudin’s Score. Infarct stroke was found in 54%, 58% happened in male and 96,6% found in age over 40.   Sensitivity of Bahrudin’s Score is 0.868, specificity 0.860, positive predictive value os 0.825, negative predictive value is 0.896, positive likelihood ratio is 6.600, negative likelihood ratio is 0.153, accuracy 0.864, and AUC 86.4%. It is determined that Bahrudin’s score with AUC 86.4% is feasible to replace CT-Scan when it is not available.

References

American Heart Association (2017). Let’s Talk about Stroke : Risk factors for stroke. tersedia pada : www.strokeassociation.org/letstalkaboutstroke. (diakses 15 September 2019)

Bahrudin M, 2015, Bahrudin Skor (Skor diagnostic untuk menentukan jenis stroke perdarahan atau sumbatan berdasarkan gejala klinis), Cakrawala Indonesia, Malang. pp. 68 – 72.

Bahrudin M, 2017, Stroke dalam Neurologi Klinis, UMM Press, Malang, pp. 239 – 302.

Choudhury MJH, Chowdhury MTI, Nayeem A, & Jahan WA, 2015, Modifiable and Non-Modifiable Risk Factors of Stroke: A Review Update, Journal of National Institute of Neurosciences Bangladesh, 1(1), pp.22–26. https://doi.org/10.3329/jninb.v1i1.22944

Coupland AP, Thapar A, Qureshi MI, Jenkins H, Davies AH. The definition of stroke. J R Soc Med. 2017;110(1):9–12.

Dahlan Sopiyudin, 2009, Penelitian diagnostik, Salemba medika, Jakarta.

Feignin V. 2007, Stroke, Panduan Bergambar Tentang Pencegahan dan Pemulihan Stroke. Jakarta: PT Bhuana Ilmu Populer. Pp. 9-20

Japardi, Iskandar 2002, Patofisiologi Stroke Infark akibat tromboemboli, Available from URL: http://www.library.usu.ac.id diakses 20 Juli 2009

Kemenkes RI, 2013, Riset Kesehatan Dasar (RISKESDAS), Balitbang

Kemenkes RI, Jakarta.

Kemenkes RI, 2014, Infodatin : Situasi Kesehatan Jantung, Pusat Data dan Informasi Kementrian Kesehatan RI, Jakarta.

Kemenkes RI, 2018, Hasil Utama Riskesdas di Indonesia 2018, Balitbang Kemenkes RI, Jakarta.

Kusuma Y, Venketasubramanian N, Kiemas LS, Misbach J. Burden of stroke in Indonesia. Int J Stroke. 2009;4(5):379–80.

Masood CT, Hussain M, Anis-ur-Rehman, & Abbasi S, 2016, Clinical presentation, risk factors and outcome of stroke at a district level teaching hospital, Journal of Ayub Medical College,Abbottahad : JAMC, 25(1-2), pp. 49-51

Parmar P, 2018, Stroke : classification and diagnosis, The Pharmaceutical Journal, London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, pp. 01 – 15 https://doi.org/10.1211/CP.2018.20204150

Sustrani, Alam, 2006, Stroke, Jakarta, Gramedia Pustaka Utama, pp 7 – 33 Trisetiawati

Downloads

Published

2020-12-30