Objective: Although various predictive instruments have been introduced for early stroke diagnosis, there is no consensus on their performance. Therefore, we decided to assess the value of predictive instruments in the detection of stroke by conducting an umbrella review. Methods: A search was performed in the Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science databases by the end of August 2021 for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Original articles included in the systematic reviews were retrieved, summarized and pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio were calculated. The level of evidence was divided into five groups: convincing (class I), highly suggestive (class II), suggestive (class III), weak (class IV) and non-significant. Results: The value of 33 predictive instruments was evaluated. The sample size included in these scoring systems’ assessments varied between 182 and 47072 patients. The level of evidence was class I in one tool, class II in 18 tools, class III in 2 tools, class IV in 11 tools, and non-significant in one tool. Apart from Med PACS, which had a low diagnostic value, other tools appeared to be able to detect a stroke. The optimum performance for diagnosis of stroke was for ROSIER, NIHSS, PASS, FAST, LAMS, RACE and CPSS. Conclusion: Convincing to suggestive evidence shows that ROSIER, NIHSS, PASS, FAST, LAMS, RACE and CPSS have the optimum performance in identifying stroke. Since ROSIER’s calculation is simple and has the highest sensitivity and specificity among those predictive instruments, it is recommended for stroke diagnosis in pre-hospital and in-hospital settings.

Background Previously, several studies investigated the effect of cladribine among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) as a treatment option. Due to the contradictory results of previous studies regarding the efficacy and safety of cladribine in the MS population, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis by including clinical trials and observational studies in terms of having more confirmative results to make a general decision. Methods The three databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were comprehensively searched in May 2022. We included the studies that investigated the efficacy and safety of cladribine in patients with MS. Eligible studies have to provide sufficient details on MS diagnosis and appropriate follow-up duration. We investigated the efficacy of cladribine with several outcomes including Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) change, progression-free survival (PFS), relapse-free survival (RFS), and MRI-free activity survival (MFAS). Results After two-step reviewing, 23 studies were included in our qualitative and quantitative synthesis. The pooled SMD for EDSS before and after treatment was − 0.54 (95%CI: − 1.46, 0.39). Our analysis showed that the PFS after cladribine use is 79% (95%CI 71%, 86%). Also, 58% of patients with MS who received cladribine remained relapse-free (95%CI 31%, 83%). Furthermore, the MFAS after treatment was 60% (95%CI 36%, 81%). Our analysis showed that infection is the most common adverse event after cladribine treatment with a pooled prevalence of 10% (95%CI 4%, 18%). Moreover, the pooled prevalence of infusion-related adverse events was 9% (95%CI 4%, 15%). Also, the malignancies after cladribine were present in 0.4% of patients (95%CI 0.25%, 0.75%). Conclusion Our results showed acceptable safety and efficacy for cladribine for the treatment of MS except in terms of reducing EDSS. Combination of our findings with the results of previous studies which compared cladribine to other disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), cladribine seems to be a safe and effective drug in achieving better treatment for relapsing–remitting MS (RRMS) patients. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10072-023-06794-w.

No abstract