Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27039389›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurology2016

Women have a poorer very long-term functional outcome after stroke among adults aged 18-50 years: the FUTURE study.

Nathalie E Synhaeve, Renate M Arntz, Mayte E van Alebeek, Jeske van Pamelen, Noortje A M Maaijwee, Loes C A Rutten-Jacobs, Henny C Schoonderwaldt, Paul L M de Kort, Ewoud J van Dijk, Frank-Erik de Leeuw

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Stroke in women - from evidence to inequalities.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2017
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

10 authors.

Nathalie E SynhaeveDepartment of Neurology, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Renate M ArntzDepartment of Neurology, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Mayte E van AlebeekDepartment of Neurology, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Jeske van PamelenDepartment of Neurology, Elisabeth Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Noortje A M MaaijweeDepartment of Neurology, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Loes C A Rutten-JacobsDepartment of Neurology, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Henny C SchoonderwaldtDepartment of Neurology, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Paul L M de KortDepartment of Neurology, Elisabeth Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Ewoud J van DijkDepartment of Neurology, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Frank-Erik de LeeuwDepartment of Neurology, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. FrankErik.deLeeuw@radboudumc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to their young age young stroke survivors have to cope with a dramatic impact on their life for the decades to come. We investigated the sex-specific very long-term functional outcome after transient ischemic attack (TIA) and ischemic stroke (IS) in adults aged 18-50 years. This study is part of a cohort study among 619 first-ever young ischemic stroke patients, admitted to our department between January 1, 1980 and November 1, 2010. Functional outcome was assessed during follow-up in 2009-2011 and in 2014-2015 with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and instrumental Activities of Daily Living scale (iADL). Risk factors for a poor functional outcome (mRS > 2 and iADL < 8) were calculated by logistic regression analysis. After a mean follow-up of 13.9 (SD 8.2) years, 24.5 % of TIA patients and 44.7 % of IS patients had a poor functional outcome (mRS > 2). When assessing the survivors, 15.2 % of TIA patients and 22.9 % of IS patients had a poor outcome as assessed by iADL. The strongest baseline predictors of poor outcome were female sex (OR 2.7, 95 % CI 1.5-5.0) and baseline NIHSS (OR 1.1, 95 % CI 1.1-1.2 per point increase). In conclusion, 14 years after an ischemic cerebrovascular event in young adults, one out of five IS survivors and one out of ten TIA survivors is still dependent in daily life, with a two to threefold higher risk of a poor outcome in women. This includes a period of life, during which important decisions regarding work and family life have to be made.

Indexed as

Recovery of FunctionActivities of Daily LivingAdolescentAdultBrain IschemiaFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSeverity of Illness IndexSex FactorsStrokeSurvivorsFunctional outcomePrognosisStroke in young adultsTransient ischemic attack

Identifiers

PMID27039389
PMCPMC4893376

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.