ArticleJournal of neurosciences in rural practice
Outcomes of patients with large middle cerebral artery infarct treated with and without intravenous thrombolysis.
Article in Journal of neurosciences in rural practice. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Intravenous thrombolysis: Still an important tool in the management of severe ischemic stroke patients.Journal of neurosciences in rural practiceArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany thrombolytic studies showed that severe stroke was associated with death and having symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage and inversely related to a favorable outcome.
aimsThe purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of patients with acute large middle cerebral artery (MCA) infarction with and without intravenous recombinant-tissue-plasminogen activator (rtPA) treatment.
methodsPatients with acute, large MCA infarction (National Institute of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] >15) who were treated during 2011-2014 were studied. The demographic data and the outcomes were compared between patients with and without intravenous rtPA treatment.
resultsTwo hundred and forty patients were included. Mean NIHSS score was 20. One hundred and twenty patients were treated with intravenous rtPA treatment. The patients with rtPA treatment had higher rates of favorable outcomes (39% vs. 17%, P < 0.001) and lower mortality rate (16% vs. 51%, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (6% vs. 4%, P = 0.715).
conclusionsThe study showed the benefit and safety of intravenous rtPA treatment in patients with acute large MCA infarct.
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.