ArticleFrontiers in neurology2017
Choices Regarding Thrombolysis Are Modified by the Way to Transfer the Messages.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although thrombolysis is the most effective medical treatment for acute ischemic stroke, many stroke patients eligible for thrombolysis miss this treatment as a result of delay or refusal by the patients and/or their proxies. To explore the influences of prognostic information for different intervals from stroke onset to the start of thrombolytic treatment (OTT) and other factors on the preferences of patients/proxies regarding thrombolytic therapy, a cross-sectional, discrete-choice experiment was performed between August 2013 and September 2014. A total of 613 Chinese inpatients or their immediate family members were consecutively recruited at the Department of Neurology. After random assignment to a negative-framing group or a positive-framing group, the subjects completed a series of surveys, including nine items about thrombolysis. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to examine participants' preference paradigms for thrombolysis and to categorize the participants into different subgroups. Subsequently, regression analyses were conducted to explore predictors of categorization of the participants into each subgroup and to construct a thrombolytic decision-making model. LCA revealed an optimal 3-subgroup model including a consent to thrombolysis subgroup and objection to thrombolysis subgroups 1 and 2. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that compared with assignment to the consent to thrombolysis subgroup, assignment to objection to thrombolysis subgroup 1 or 2 could be predicted by different factors. χ
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.