ABSTRACT NUMBER: ESOC2026A169 ENHANCING STROKE DIAGNOSIS: THE REAL-WORLD VALUE OF THE HINTS PLUS TEST FOR POSTERIOR CIRCULATION STROKE

Abstract Background and aims Diagnosing posterior circulation stroke in patients presenting with isolated acute dizziness remains clinically challenging. The HINTS Plus test is proposed to differentiate between central and peripheral causes of acute dizziness, showing high sensitivity and specificity in selected populations when performed by specialists. However, its performance in unselected populations and when applied by non-specialists remains uncertain. Methods The PROVIDE trial included 800 adults with acute continuous dizziness without focal neurological deficits. Nystagmus and gait imbalance were permitted, but not required for inclusion. Patients underwent neurological examination, HINTS Plus testing, and MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging. MRI scans were centrally reviewed. Functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale) and recurrent vascular events were assessed at 3-month follow-up. Final diagnoses were determined by an expert panel integrating clinical data, imaging findings, and follow-up information, serving as a construct reference standard. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the HINTS Plus test as performed by the initial treating physician. Results Compared with the expert panel diagnosis, the HINTS Plus test showed a sensitivity of 39%, specificity of 82%, PPV of 25%, NPV of 90%, LR+ of 2.11, and LR- of 0.75. Conclusions The real-world sensitivity of the HINTS Plus test is substantially lower than previously reported. This reduced performance is likely attributable to differences in patient population, performance by non-specialists, and potential overfitting of the test to its development cohort. Our study provides valuable insights from the Netherlands, likely representative of many European healthcare settings, and suggest that clinicians can not rely on the HINTS Plus test. Conflict of interest Merel Verhagen: nothing to disclose. Adriaan Ros: nothing to disclose. Vincent Klokman: nothing to disclose. Kim Jie: nothing to disclose. Meike Schoenmakers: nothing to disclose. Karlijn de Laat: nothing to disclose. Suzanne Cannegieter: nothing to disclose. Korné Jellema: nothing to disclose.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Stroke Journal
Published
2026-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/esj/aakag023.203
Primary Topic
Vestibular and auditory disorders
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

ABSTRACT NUMBER: ESOC2026A169 ENHANCING STROKE DIAGNOSIS: THE REAL-WORLD VALUE OF THE HINTS PLUS TEST FOR POSTERIOR CIRCULATION STROKE

Adriaan Ros, Meike Schoenmakers, Karlijn de Laat, Kim Jie et al.
European Stroke Journal
Vestibular and auditory disorders
article

ABSTRACT NUMBER: ESOC2026A169 ENHANCING STROKE DIAGNOSIS: THE REAL-WORLD VALUE OF THE HINTS PLUS TEST FOR POSTERIOR CIRCULATION STROKE

Adriaan Ros, Meike Schoenmakers, Karlijn de Laat, Kim Jie, Korné Jellema, Vincent Klokman, Suzanne Cannegieter, Merel Verhagen
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background and aims Diagnosing posterior circulation stroke in patients presenting with isolated acute dizziness remains clinically challenging. The HINTS Plus test is proposed to differentiate between central and peripheral causes of acute dizziness, showing high sensitivity and specificity in selected populations when performed by specialists. However, its performance in unselected populations and when applied by non-specialists remains uncertain. Methods The PROVIDE trial included 800 adults with acute continuous dizziness without focal neurological deficits. Nystagmus and gait imbalance were permitted, but not required for inclusion. Patients underwent neurological examination, HINTS Plus testing, and MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging. MRI scans were centrally reviewed. Functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale) and recurrent vascular events were assessed at 3-month follow-up. Final diagnoses were determined by an expert panel integrating clinical data, imaging findings, and follow-up information, serving as a construct reference standard. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the HINTS Plus test as performed by the initial treating physician. Results Compared with the expert panel diagnosis, the HINTS Plus test showed a sensitivity of 39%, specificity of 82%, PPV of 25%, NPV of 90%, LR+ of 2.11, and LR- of 0.75. Conclusions The real-world sensitivity of the HINTS Plus test is substantially lower than previously reported. This reduced performance is likely attributable to differences in patient population, performance by non-specialists, and potential overfitting of the test to its development cohort. Our study provides valuable insights from the Netherlands, likely representative of many European healthcare settings, and suggest that clinicians can not rely on the HINTS Plus test. Conflict of interest Merel Verhagen: nothing to disclose. Adriaan Ros: nothing to disclose. Vincent Klokman: nothing to disclose. Kim Jie: nothing to disclose. Meike Schoenmakers: nothing to disclose. Karlijn de Laat: nothing to disclose. Suzanne Cannegieter: nothing to disclose. Korné Jellema: nothing to disclose.

European Stroke JournalVol. 11(Supplement_1)
Leiden University Medical Center (NL), Medisch Centrum Haaglanden (NL), St. Antonius Ziekenhuis (NL), Maasstad Ziekenhuis (NL), Haga Hospital (NL), Jeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis (NL)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Vestibular and auditory disorders
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.