Historical criteria that distinguish syncope from seizures
Open accessAbstract
Objectives We prospectively sought evidence-based criteria that distinguished between seizures and syncope.Background Loss of consciousness is usually due to either seizures or syncope. There are no evidence-based historical diagnostic criteria that distinguish them.Methods A total of 671 patients with loss of consciousness completed a 118-item historical questionnaire. Data sets were complete for all subjects. The data set was randomly divided into two equal groups. The contributions of symptoms to diagnoses in one group were estimated with logistic regression and point scores were developed. The accuracy of the decision rule was then assessed using split-half analysis. Analyses were performed with and without inclusion of measures of symptom burden, which were the number of losses of consciousness and the duration of the history. The scores were tested using receiver-operator characteristic analysis.Results The causes of loss of consciousness were known satisfactorily in 539 patients and included seizures (n = 102; complex partial epilepsy [50 patients] and primary generalized epilepsy [52 patients]) and syncope (n = 437; tilt-positive vasovagal syncope [267 patients], ventricular tachycardia [90 patients] and other diagnoses such as complete heart block and supraventricular tachycardias [80 patients]). The point score based on symptoms alone correctly classified 94% of patients, diagnosing seizures with 94% sensitivity and 94% specificity. Including symptom burden did not significantly improve accuracy, indicating that the symptoms surrounding the loss of consciousness accurately discriminate between seizures and syncope.Conclusions A simple point score of historical features distinguishes syncope from seizures with very high sensitivity and specificity.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Diagnostic scores for vasovagal syncope were developed from patients with rigorously defined diagnoses.
“Diagnostic scores have been developed based on patients with rigorously defined diagnoses.90–93”
From 2015 Heart Rhythm Society Expert Consensus Statement on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Postural Tachycardia Syndrome, Inappropriate Sinus Tachycardia, and Vasovagal Syncope (2015) · cites this paper as [92]
The Patient selection section says participants had diagnoses established by preset criteria without reasonable diagnostic confusion; vasovagal syncope required a positive tilt test. The Discussion says the resulting point score distinguished syncope from seizures, not vasovagal syncope specifically, and that schemes for distinguishing causes of syncope were still being developed. Page numbers were not supplied for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 28 · Cited by 398
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- [3]3. Wayne HH. Syncope. Physiological considerations and an analysis of the clinical characteristics in 510 patients. Am J Med 1961;30:418 -38.
- [16]16. Linzer M, Yang EH, Estes MA III, Wang P, Vorperian VR, Kapoor W. Diagnosing syncope. Part I. Value of history, physical examination, and electrocardiography. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:989 -96.
- [17]17. Linzer M, Yang EH, Estes MA III, Wang P, Vorperian VR, Kapoor W. Diagnosing syncope. Part II. Unexplained syncope. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:76 -87.
- [23]23. Sheldon RS, Rose S, Koshman ML. Isoproterenol tilt table testing in patients with syncope and structural heart disease. Am J Cardiol 1996;78:700 -3.
- Authors
- Sheldon, R., Rose, S., Ritchie, D., Connolly, S. J., Koshman, M.-L., Lee, M. A., Frenneaux, M., Fisher, M., & Murphy, W.
- Affiliations
- University of Calgary (CA)
- McMaster University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Sheldon, Robert
- Venue
- Journal of the American College of Cardiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2002-07
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 142-148
- ISSN
- 0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2129860721
- Cited by
- 398
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 29
- FWCI
- 8.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of the American College of Cardiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Epilepsy research and treatment
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vestibular and auditory disorders
- Keywords
- syncope, seizures, loss of consciousness, differential diagnosis, medical history, vasovagal syncope, ventricular tachycardia, complex partial epilepsy, primary generalized epilepsy, symptom burden, diagnostic accuracy
- MeSH terms
- Diagnosis, Differential, Humans, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, ROC Curve, Seizures, Sensitivity and Specificity, Syncope, Unconsciousness, Logistic Models, Case-Control Studies
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review