ReviewCurrent neurology and neuroscience reports2017
Controversies in Thrombolysis.
Review in Current neurology and neuroscience reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research progress and clinical evaluation of histotripsy: a narrative review.Annals of translational medicine · 2023Review
- Diabetes and the treatment of ischemic stroke.Journal of diabetes and its complications · 2022Review
- Review
- Is it possible to overcome issues of external validity in preclinical animal research? Why most animal models are bound to fail.Journal of translational medicine · 2018Review
- Retrospective harm benefit analysis of pre-clinical animal research for six treatment interventions.PloS one · 2018Article
- Paradigm Shift to Neuroimmunomodulation for Translational Neuroprotection in Stroke.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe purpose of the review is to examine recent evidence on the effects of intravenous thrombolysis and identify the remaining uncertainties. RECENT
findingsWe review the results of two large trials (the third International Stroke Trial (IST-3) and The Enhanced Control of Hypertension and Thrombolysis Stroke Study (ENCHANTED)) and the publications from the individual patient data analyses of the trials of alteplase conducted by the Stroke Thrombolysis Trialists Collaboration. Despite about a 2% risk of fatal intracerebral haemorrhage, on average, adult patients of all ages treated with 0.9 mg/kg alteplase within 4.5 h will have better long-term functional outcome. The use of a lower dose of alteplase (0.6 mg/kg) is associated with a lower risk of haemorrhage but its effect on functional outcome has not been proven to be non-inferior to standard dose therapy. Some clinicians feel confident to treat selected patients who present beyond 4.5 h or have unknown time of onset, but many also agree that the current trials and other research is needed to reliably define the optimum imaging methods and treatment eligibility criteria.
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.