ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2012
An analysis of outcomes of emergency physician/department-based thrombolysis for stroke.
Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stroke thrombolysis given by emergency physicians cuts in-hospital delays significantly immediately after implementing a new treatment protocol.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2016Article
- Safety and feasibility of intravenous rt-PA in the Emergency Department without a neurologist-based stroke unit: an observational study.Internal and emergency medicine · 2015Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStroke thrombolysis is strongly supported as an effective therapy for selected cases of early stroke. The absence of 24 h stroke specialists in district general hospitals (DGHs) has led to the suggestion that regional hyper-acute stroke centres should be developed. This paper describes a cooperative model that uses the skills already present in a DGH to deliver a thrombolysis service initiated in the emergency department by the emergency physicians, and describes the outcomes of that service in comparison with the SITS-MOST trial.
methodThe outcomes of all stroke patients thrombolysed at Scarborough DGH from 2004 to January 2009 were reviewed. Outcome was defined using a three-part scale. Data at Scarborough DGH were compared with data from the SITS-MOST European-wide study of stroke thrombolysis.
resultsData were available for 98 of 110 patients thrombolysed during the study period. Fifty (51%) had a good outcome, seven (8%) had partial resolution of their symptoms, and 41 (42%) showed no improvement or deterioration. These outcomes were comparable to those in the European database.
conclusionStroke thrombolysis can be effectively delivered in a non-specialist (a non-hyper-acute stroke centre) DGH in the UK. An audit of cases completed describes complications seen.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.