BACKGROUND: This retrospective study addresses for the first time the differences in clinical features and outcomes between those individuals with a @entity1188 who were correctly diagnosed on initial presentation compared to those who experienced delayed diagnosis. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of our @entity64 registry from 09/2003 to 02/2011. Forty seven @entity1 had an @entity1188 confirmed by MRI. Misdiagnosis was defined as the diagnosis given by the first physician. RESULTS: Among 47 @entity1 identified, 59.6% had delayed diagnosis. Five @entity1 in the correct diagnosis group received intravenous tissue plasminogen activator, compared to none in the delayed diagnosis group. Complaints of @entity425 were protective from delayed diagnosis (OR 0.087, 95% CI 0.019-0.393, p=0.001). Conclusion : @entity1 with an @entity1188 need to be considered when @entity1 present with acute non-specific symptoms. Critical components of the neurological examination are omitted which are imperative to diagnose @entity1188 . A thorough neurological examination may increase clinical suspicion of an @entity385 .

Misdiagnosis of XXXX .

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['Patients', 'patients'] @entity64 :: ('MESH:D020521', 'Disease') :: ['stroke'] @entity425 :: ('MESH:D018908', 'Disease') :: ['weakness'] @entity1188 :: ('MESH:D007238', 'Disease') :: ['isolated cerebellar infarction', 'cerebellar infarct', 'cerebellar infarcts'] @entity385 :: ('MESH:D002544', 'Disease') :: ['ischemic stroke']
@entity1188 :: (MESH:D007238,Disease) :: ['cerebellar infarctions']
