SynthesisPloS one2013
Efficacy and safety of endovascular treatment versus intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Endovascular Treatment Versus Intravenous Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke: a Quantitative Review and Meta-Analysis of 21 Randomized Trials.Molecular neurobiology · 2017Pooled it
- Endovascular treatment versus medical care alone for ischaemic stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2016Pooled it
- Endovascular Treatment with Stent-Retriever Devices for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.PloS one · 2016Pooled it
- Functional outcomes and recanalization rates of stent retrievers in acute ischaemic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis.The neuroradiology journal · 2015Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeAlthough endovascular therapy (ET) is increasingly used in patients with moderate to severe acute ischemic stroke, its efficacy and safety remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis aiming to compare the benefits and safety of endovascular treatment and intravenous thrombolysis in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Science direct and Springer unitil July, 2013. The primary outcomes included good outcome (mRS ≤ 2) and excellent outcome (mRS ≤ 1) at 90 days or at trial end point. Secondary outcomes were occurrence of symptomatic hemorrhage and all-cause mortality.
resultsUsing a prespecified search strategy, 5 RCTs with 1106 patients comparing ET and intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) were included in the meta-analysis. ET and IVT were associated with similar good (43.06% vs 41.78%; OR=1.14; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.69; P=0.52;) and excellent (30.43% vs 30.42%; OR=1.05; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.38; P=0.72;) outcome. For additional end points, ET was not associated with increased occurrence of symptomatic hemorrhage (6.25% vs. 6.22%; OR=1.03; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.69; P=0.91;), or all-cause mortality (18.45% vs. 17.35%; OR=1.00; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.39; P=0.99;).
conclusionsFormal meta-analysis indicates that there are similar safety outcomes and functional independence with endovascular therapy and intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke.
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.