Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28744672›Full record

ReviewCurrent neurology and neuroscience reports2017

Unresolved Issues in Thrombectomy.

Mahesh V Jayaraman, Ryan A McTaggart, Mayank Goyal

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mahesh V JayaramanDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Warren Alpert School of Medicine at Brown University, Rhode Island Hospital, 593 Eddy Street, Room 377, Providence, RI, 02903, USA. mahesh.jayaraman@gmail.com.
Ryan A McTaggartDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Warren Alpert School of Medicine at Brown University, Rhode Island Hospital, 593 Eddy Street, Room 377, Providence, RI, 02903, USA.
Mayank GoyalDepartment of Radiology, University of Calgary School of Medicine, Foothills Medical Centre, Calgary, AB, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewTrials demonstrating marked benefit of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for acute stroke caused by large vessel occlusion (LVO) in the anterior circulation have been the most significant advance in acute ischemic stroke in the past 20 years. However, despite this marked advance, there are still many hurdles to improving access to thrombectomy worldwide. Additionally, despite these advances, a substantial portion of patients with LVO still are left disabled. RECENT

findingsThe major randomized trials focused on patients within 6 h from symptom onset, with occlusion of the ICA or proximal MCA, small amount of permanently damaged brain, and a moderate to large clinical deficit. We will explore the role of thrombectomy outside of these areas, but also explore larger issues as they pertain to re-organization of stroke systems of care to improve access to this remarkable therapy. Now that we have proven, without a shadow of doubt, that rapid revascularization with mechanical thrombectomy improves outcomes in LVO stroke, we must reorganize our systems of care to improve access and assess the role for MT outside of the patients who meet trial criteria.

Indexed as

Brain InjuriesEmergency Medical ServicesHumansMechanical ThrombolysisStrokeThrombectomyTime-to-TreatmentLarge vessel occlusionMechanical thrombectomyNeuroprotectionStrokeStroke systems of care

Identifiers

PMID28744672

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.