ArticleNeurocritical care2012
Agreement in endovascular thrombolysis patient selection based on interpretation of presenting CT and CT-P changes in ischemic stroke patients.
Article in Neurocritical care, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prospective Endovascular Treatment in Acute Ischemic Stroke Evaluating Non-Contrast Head CT versus CT Perfusion (PLEASE No CTP).Interventional neurology · 2020Article
- Computed tomography perfusion and computed tomography angiography for prediction of clinical outcomes in ischemic stroke patients after thrombolysis.Neural regeneration research · 2017Article
- Clinical use of computed tomographic perfusion for the diagnosis and prediction of lesion growth in acute ischemic stroke.Journal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases : the official journal of National Stroke Association · 2014Article
- Advanced neuroimaging to guide acute stroke therapy.Current cardiology reports · 2012Review
- How well do blood flow imaging and collaterals on angiography predict brain at risk?Neurology · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the agreement in patient selection based on computed tomography (CT) and CT-perfusion (CT-P) imaging interpretation between stroke specialists in stroke patients considered for endovascular treatment.
methodsAll endovascular-treated acute ischemic stroke patients were identified through a prospective database from two comprehensive stroke centers; 25 consecutively treated patients were used for this analysis. Initial CT images and CT-P data were independently interpreted by five board eligible/certified vascular neurologists with additional endovascular training to decide whether or not to select the patient for endovascular treatment. The CT/CT-P images were evaluated separately and used as the sole imaging decision making criteria, 2 weeks apart from each other (memory wash-out period). For each set of imaging data inter-rater and intra-rater agreement scores were obtained using Cohen's kappa statistic to assess the proportion of agreement beyond chance.
resultsKappa values for the treatment decisions based on CT images was 0.43 (range 0.14-0.8) (moderate agreement), and for the decisions based on CTP images was 0.29 (range 0.07-0.67) (fair agreement) among the five subjects. There was substantial variability within the group and between images interpretation. Observed agreement on decision to treat with endovascular therapy was found to be 75% with CT images and 59% with CT-P images (with no adjustment for chance). Kappa values for intra-rater agreement were -0.14 (ranged -0.27-0.27) (poor agreement).
conclusionsThere is considerable lack of agreement, even among stroke specialists, in selecting acute ischemic stroke patients for endovascular treatment based on CT-P changes. This mandates a careful evaluation of CT-P for patient selection before widespread adoption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21725693What 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.