SynthesisAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2016
Endovascular Treatment versus Best Medical Treatment in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Milestones in the history of neurocritical care.Neurological research and practice · 2023Review
- Changes in Neuroendovascular Procedural Volume During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An International Multicenter Study.Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging · 2021Article
- Cerebral regions preserved by successful endovascular recanalization of acute M1 segment occlusions: a voxel based analysis.The British journal of radiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeEndovascular treatment has emerged as a minimally invasive technique for patients with acute ischemic stroke to achieve recanalization. Our aim was to determine the effects of endovascular treatment on clinical and safety outcomes compared with best medical treatment. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifteen randomized trials that compared endovascular treatment with best medical treatment in patients with acute ischemic stroke met the inclusion criteria. We calculated pooled odds ratios and 95% CIs by using random-effects models. The primary end point was a favorable outcome defined by a modified Rankin Scale score of 0 (no symptoms), 1 (no significant disability), or 2 (slight disability) at 90 days postrandomization.
resultsOf the 2980 subjects randomized, the proportion of subjects who achieved a favorable outcome was significantly greater among those randomized to endovascular treatment compared with best medical treatment (2949 subjects analyzed; odds ratio, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.38-2.40; P < .001). Excellent outcome (modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1) was also significantly greater among those randomized to endovascular treatment (2791 subjects analyzed; odds ratio, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.29-2.43, P < .001). Risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was similar between endovascular treatment and best medical treatment (2906 subjects analyzed; odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.84-1.68; P = .34).
conclusionsCompared with best medical treatment, the odds of achieving a favorable outcome or excellent outcome at 3 months postrandomization are approximately 80% higher with endovascular treatment among patients with 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.