Evidence-based emergency medicine. Is MRI more accurate than CT in patients with suspected acute stroke?

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. MRI Waiting Time Disparities in Saudi Public Hospitals: A Six-Year Retrospective Study.Cureus · 2026
   Article
2. Serum Sphingosine 1-Phosphate (S1P): A Novel Diagnostic Biomarker in Early Acute Ischemic Stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2020
   Article
3. Relationship between the lesion location of acute ischemic stroke and early depressive symptoms in Japanese patients.Annals of general psychiatry · 2016
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography for detection of acute vascular lesions in patients presenting with stroke symptoms.2009

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.