ArticleExpert review of neurotherapeutics2015
Why don't more patients receive intravenous rt-PA for acute stroke?
Article in Expert review of neurotherapeutics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Risk Factors Associated with Outcomes of Recombinant Tissue Plasminogen Activator Therapy in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Pannexin1 knockout and blockade reduces ischemic stroke injury in female, but not in male mice.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Critical early thrombolytic and endovascular reperfusion therapy for acute ischemic stroke victims: a call for adjunct neuroprotection.Translational stroke research · 2015Article
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
Abstract
Intravenous rt-PA was proven safe and effective for acute ischemic stroke in 1995, approved by US FDA in 1996, and endorsed by the American Heart Association, American Academy of Neurology, and National Stroke Association in 1997. The treatment is remarkably cost-effective, despite the high cost of the drug itself and the stroke teams to give it. Community-based practicing neurologists can use t-PA for acute stroke without the need for specialized expertise. The benefit is durable over long-term follow-up and no particular subgroups, such as the elderly or those with very large strokes, should be excluded from treatment. Several additional studies have now confirmed the beneficial effects of thrombolytic therapy for stroke in de novo samples. So why isn't the drug used more? Some troubling mis-understandings in the literature seem persistent and influential among clinicians. Considerable data supports the use of rt-PA for acute ischemic stroke, which should remove remaining doubts.
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.