A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

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

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

Br J Community Nurs

Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Department of Emergency Medicine and Department of Neurology, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Published: September 2025


Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: 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.

Aims: This systematic review compares the efficacy of FAST and BE-FAST in detecting acute stroke in prehospital settings.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusions: 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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.12968/bjcn.2025.0119DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

stroke recognition
12
systematic review
12
fast be-fast
12
be-fast
8
stroke
8
prehospital stroke
8
detecting acute
8
ischaemic stroke
8
face arm
8
arm speech
8

Similar Publications