Striving for the Best: How Far Should We Go? Regarding "Impact of Modified TICI 3 versus Modified TICI 2b Reperfusion Score to Predict Good Outcome following Endovascular Therapy".

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

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

1. Systematic review and meta-analysis on outcome differences among patients with TICI2b versus TICI3 reperfusions: success revisited.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 2018
   Pooled it
2. Factors Associated With Decreased Accuracy of Modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarct Scoring Among Neurointerventionalists During Thrombectomy.Stroke · 2021
   Article
3. Safety and Efficacy of Intra-arterial Urokinase After Failed, Unsuccessful, or Incomplete Mechanical Thrombectomy in Anterior Circulation Large-Vessel Occlusion Stroke.JAMA neurology · 2020
   Observational

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Impact of Modified TICI 3 versus Modified TICI 2b Reperfusion Score to Predict Good Outcome following Endovascular Therapy.2017

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as