ArticleJournal of stroke2016
Decision-Making Support Using a Standardized Script and Visual Decision Aid to Reduce Door-to-Needle Time in Stroke.
Article in Journal of stroke, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of interventions to improve rates of intravenous thrombolysis using behaviour change wheel functions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Implementation science : IS · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Updates in Intravenous Thrombolysis Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in Asian Populations.Aging and disease · 2025Review
- ACT-FAST: a quality improvement project to increase the percentage of acute stroke patients receiving intravenous thrombolysis within 60 minutes of arrival at the emergency department.Singapore medical journal · 2021Article
- Thrombolytic Refusal Over Telestroke.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2021Article
- Racial disparities in refusal of stroke thrombolysis in Chicago.Neurology · 2018Article
- Thrombolysis in stroke patients: Comparability of point-of-care versus central laboratory international normalized ratio.PloS one · 2018Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.