Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23864913›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine research2013

The quest for arterial recanalization in acute ischemic stroke-the past, present and the future.

Leonard L L Yeo, Vijay K Sharma

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Temperature-sensitive liposome-mediated delivery of thrombolytic agents.International journal of hyperthermia : the official journal of European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology, North American Hyperthermia Group · 2015
    Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Leonard L L YeoDivision of Neurology, National University Hospital, Singapore and Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Vijay K Sharma

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ischemic stroke is one of the major causes of mortality and long-term disability. In the recent past, only very few treatment options were available and a considerable proportion of stroke survivors remained permanently disabled. However, over the last 2 decades rapid advances in acute stroke care have resulted in a corresponding improvement in mortality rates and functional outcomes. In this review, we describe the evolution of systemic thrombolytic agents and various interventional devices, their current status as well as some of the future prospects. We reviewed literature pertaining to acute ischemic stroke reperfusion treatment. We explored the current accepted treatment strategies to attain cerebral reperfusion via intravenous modalities and compare and contrast them within the boundaries of their clinical trials. Subsequently we reviewed the trials for interventional devices for acute ischemic stroke, categorizing them into thrombectomy devices, aspiration devices, clot disruption devices and thrombus entrapment devices. Finally we surveyed several of the alternative reperfusion strategies available. We also shed some light on the controversies surrounding the current strategies of treatment of acute ischemic stroke. Acute invasive interventional strategies continue to improve along with the noninvasive modalities. Both approaches appear promising. We conducted a comprehensive chronological review of the existing treatments as well as upcoming remedies for acute ischemic stroke.

Indexed as

DevicesInterventionRecanalizationReperfusionStrokeThrombolysis

Identifiers

PMID23864913
PMCPMC3712879

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.