ReviewCurrent neurology and neuroscience reports2014
Evolving role of endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke.
Review in Current neurology and neuroscience reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impracticality of radiomics research in acute ischemic stroke: from the perspective of primary healthcare institutions.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- Dl-3-n-butylphthalide Reduces Neurovascular Inflammation and Ischemic Brain Injury in Mice.Aging and disease · 2019Article
- Sequential endovascular thrombectomy approach (SETA) to acute ischemic stroke: preliminary single-centre results and cost analysis.La Radiologia medica · 2015Article
- What is the Role for Intra-Arterial Therapy in Acute Stroke Intervention?The Neurohospitalist · 2015Review
- Advances in the stroke system of care.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2015Article
- Reperfusion therapies of acute ischemic stroke: potentials and failures.Frontiers in neurology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The perceived advantages of endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke in terms of recanalization, the multimodal and targeted approaches, and perhaps the more permissive rules on devices than on medications for their licensing favored the assumption that endovascular treatment is superior to intravenous thrombolysis for acute treatment of ischemic stroke, and its adoption in more advanced stroke centers. However, this assumption has been questioned by recent clinical trial experience showing that endovascular treatment is not superior to intravenous thrombolysis. The new evidence has changed the perception and the importance of conducting randomized trials in this area. This summary examines the background and outcomes of the latest experience with endovascular techniques in acute stroke treatment based on historical data. The new challenge is how to study the latest generation of devices called stent retrievers, which are faster in recanalizing and easier to use, in selected patients with acute ischemic stroke. In the meantime, the available evidence does not provide support for the use of endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke in clinical practice.
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.