Introduction: While there are several studies on reliability of telemedicine in assessing stroke scales, little is known about the validity of a general neurological examination performed via telemedicine. Therefore, we sought to test the agreement between bedside and remote examination in acute patients of the emergency room. Methods: Acute patients at the emergency room of a 450-bed academic teaching hospital were included in this study. A clinical neurological examination consisting of 22 items was performed at bedside and also remotely via an audio-visual link by a different neurologist; both were experienced clinicians at the consultant level. Kappa statistics were calculated for each item of the examination. Results: Forty three patients completed both examinations (mean age 58.3 years, 56% female). Patients were seen between 8 and 72 min after admission (mean 36.3 min). Total time for remote examination was 12.6 min (8–21 min) and 8.9 min (5–18 min) for bedside examination. K-coefficients ranged from 0.32 (muscle tone) – 0.82 (language) indicating a fair to excellent agreement in most items. Conclusions: Remote examination via an audio-visual link produces comparable results to bedside performance even in acute patients of the emergency room. Compared to the scarce data available, inter-observer agreement is about the same as that between 2 examiners at bedside. However, more studies on reliability and validity of clinical neurological examination are required.

Keywords:
Clinical examination, Clinical neurology, Telemedicine
1.
Hubble JP, Pahwa R, Michalek DK, Thomas C, Koller WC. Interactive video conferencing: a means of providing interim care to Parkinson’s disease patients.
Mov Disord
. 1993 Jul; 8(3): 380–2.
2.
Rasmusson KA, Hartshorn JC. A comparison of epilepsy patients in a traditional ambulatory clinic and a telemedicine clinic.
Epilepsia
. 2005 May; 46(5): 767–70.
3.
Handschu R, Littmann R, Reulbach U, Gaul C, Heckmann JG, Neundörfer B, et al. Telemedicine in emergency evaluation of acute stroke: interrater agreement in remote video examination with a novel multimedia system.
Stroke
. 2003 Dec; 34(12): 2842–6.
4.
Alasheev AM, Andreev AY, Gonysheva YV, Lagutenko MN, Lutskovich OY, Mamonova AV, et al. A Comparison of Remote and Bedside Assessment of the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale in Acute Stroke Patients.
Eur Neurol
. 2017; 77(5-6): 267–71.
5.
Audebert HJ, Schenkel J, Heuschmann PU, Bogdahn U, Haberl RL; Telemedic Pilot Project for Integrative Stroke Care Group. Effects of the implementation of a telemedical stroke network: the Telemedic Pilot Project for Integrative Stroke Care (TEMPiS) in Bavaria, Germany.
Lancet Neurol
. 2006 Sep; 5(9): 742–8.
6.
Handschu R, Wacker A, Scibor M, Sancu C, Schwab S, Erbguth F, et al. Use of a telestroke service for evaluation of non-stroke neurological cases.
J Neurol
. 2015 May; 262(5): 1266–70.
7.
Chua R, Craig J, Wootton R, Patterson V. Randomised controlled trial of telemedicine for new neurological outpatient referrals.
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry
. 2001 Jul; 71(1): 63–6.
8.
Wechsler LR, Tsao JW, Levine SR, Swain-Eng RJ, Adams RJ, Demaerschalk BM, et al.; American Academy of Neurology Telemedicine Work Group. Teleneurology applications: Report of the Telemedicine Work Group of the American Academy of Neurology.
Neurology
. 2013 Feb; 80(7): 670–6.
9.
Rubin MN, Wellik KE, Channer DD, Demaerschalk BM. Systematic review of teleneurology: neurohospitalist neurology.
Neurohospitalist
. 2013 Jul; 3(3): 120–4.
10.
Craig J, Patterson V, Russell C, Wootton R. Interactive videoconsultation is a feasible method for neurological in-patient assessment.
Eur J Neurol
. 2000 Nov; 7(6): 699–702.
11.
Craig J, Chua R, Russell C, Wootton R, Chant D, Patterson V. A cohort study of early neurological consultation by telemedicine on the care of neurological inpatients.
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry
. 2004 Jul; 75(7): 1031–5.
12.
Craig JJ, McConville JP, Patterson VH, Wootton R. Neurological examination is possible using telemedicine.
J Telemed Telecare
. 1999; 5(3): 177–81.
13.
Handschu R, Scibor M, Wacker A, Stark DR, Köhrmann M, Erbguth F, et al. Feasibility of certified quality management in a comprehensive stroke care network using telemedicine: STENO project.
Int J Stroke
. 2014 Dec; 9(8): 1011–6.
14.
Janssen F, Awadallah M, Alhalabi A, Körber B, Lang R, Scibor M, et al. Telemedicine in general neurology: use of audiovisual consultation for on call back-up service in an acute care hospital.
J Neurol
. 2018 Apr; 265(4): 880–4.
15.
Gelb DJ, Gunderson CH, Henry KA, Kirshner HS, Józefowicz RF; Consortium of Neurology Clerkship Directors and the Undergraduate Education Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. The neurology clerkship core curriculum.
Neurology
. 2002 Mar; 58(6): 849–52.
16.
Hallett M. NINDS myotatic reflex scale.
Neurology
. 1993 Dec; 43(12): 2723.
17.
Thaller M, Hughes T. Inter-rater agreement of observable and elicitable neurological signs.
Clin Med (Lond)
. 2014 Jun; 14(3): 264–7.
18.
Hand PJ, Haisma JA, Kwan J, Lindley RI, Lamont B, Dennis MS, et al. Interobserver agreement for the bedside clinical assessment of suspected stroke.
Stroke
. 2006 Mar; 37(3): 776–80.
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel
2019
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.