ReviewCurrent neurology and neuroscience reports2005
Treatment of massive cerebral infarction.
Review in Current neurology and neuroscience reports, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prediction Model Incorporating Infarct Localization for Stress Ulcer Risk Stratification in Acute Ischemic Stroke.Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a dynamic nomogram for predicting in-hospital mortality in acute massive cerebral infarction: a retrospective study in a Chinese population.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- The role of the Data and Safety Monitoring Board in a clinical trial: the CRISIS study.Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2013Article
- Craniectomy for malignant cerebral infarction: prevalence and outcomes in US hospitals.PloS one · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stroke is the third leading cause of death in the United States, with a person dying every 3 minutes of a stroke. Massive ischemic stroke accounts for 10% to 20% of ischemic strokes, has traditionally been associated with a high mortality and morbidity, and requires a unique management strategy. Recent advances in management, fueled by an increased understanding of the pathophysiology, may help decrease mortality and improve outcomes. Rapid access to reperfusion therapies remains the most critical element of stroke care and the cornerstone of therapy. This article focuses on newer therapies, including osmotic therapy, hypothermia, maintained normothermia, strict glycemic control, induced hypertension, and hemicraniectomy, all of which show promise for reducing mortality and improving functional outcome. These interventions have become integrated into neurologic intensive care units around the world. They are complicated, require a high level of expertise, and carry a significant learning curve. In order for these new management techniques to be effective, an expedited, aggressive, meticulous, and potentially prolonged medical management approach is needed. To accomplish this there is a growing need for focused specialists in the areas of neurointensive care and stroke.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16263063What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.