ReviewCurrent atherosclerosis reports2008
Intravenous rt-PA versus endovascular therapy for acute ischemic stroke.
Review in Current atherosclerosis reports, 2008. 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.
- The Key Regulator of Necroptosis, RIP1 Kinase, Contributes to the Formation of Astrogliosis and Glial Scar in Ischemic Stroke.Translational stroke research · 2021Article
- Efficacy of Novel Carbon Nanoparticle Antioxidant Therapy in a Severe Model of Reversible Middle Cerebral Artery Stroke in Acutely Hyperglycemic Rats.Frontiers in neurology · 2018Article
- An Outcome Model for Intravenous rt-PA in Acute Ischemic Stroke.Translational stroke research · 2015Article
- A Pilot Trial of Low-Dose Intravenous Abciximab and Unfractionated Heparin for Acute Ischemic Stroke: Translating GP IIb/IIIa Receptor Inhibition to Clinical Practice.Translational stroke research · 2010Article
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
The influence of baseline stroke severity on outcome makes comparisons between nonrandomized studies of intravenous and intra-arterial (IA) therapy problematic. Using pooled data from the placebo arms of randomized trials in acute ischemic stroke, we derived predictive functions for outcome. We then compared the outcomes from published trials to these functions. Net benefit was calculated by comparison of the individual study with the predicted outcome based on the therapeutic time window. Similar net benefit for IA therapy and intravenous therapy was found at 3 hours and 6 hours; a slight advantage for IA therapy was mitigated by an increase in mortality at 6 hours and by publication bias. No net benefit for IA therapy was shown in the time window greater than 6 hours. Conclusive evidence for the superiority of either therapy awaits prospective randomized trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18606104What 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.