ArticleJournal of vascular and interventional neurology2017
Capillary Index Score and Correlation with Outcomes in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of vascular and interventional neurology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Neurovascular Coupling in Development and Disease: Focus on Astrocytes.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThe capillary index score (CIS) has been recently introduced as a metric for rating the collateral circulation of ischemic stroke patients. Multiple studies in the last five years have evaluated the correlation of good CIS with clinical outcomes and suggested the use of CIS in selecting patients for endovascular treatment. We performed a meta-analysis of these studies comparing CIS with clinical outcomes.
methodsWe conducted a computerized search of three databases from January 2011 to November 2015 for studies related to CIS and outcomes. A CIS = 0 or 1 is considered poor (pCIS) and a CIS = 2 or 3 is considered favorable (fCIS). Using random-effect meta-analysis, we evaluated the relationship of CIS to neurological outcome (modified Rankin scale score ≤ 2), recanalization, and post-treatment hemorrhage. Meta-regression analysis of good neurological outcome was performed for adjusting baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) between groups.
resultsSix studies totaling 338 patients (212 with fCISs and 126 with pCISs) were included in the analysis. Patients with fCIS had higher likelihood of good neurological outcome [relative risk (RR) = 3.03; confidence interval (CI) = 95%, 2.05-4.47;
conclusionsObservational evidence suggests that acute ischemic stroke patients with fCIS may have higher rates of good neurological outcomes compared with patients with pCIS, independent of baseline NIHSS. CIS may be used as another tool to select patients for endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke.
Identifiers
28243344PMC5317285What 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.