SynthesisJournal of neurology2018
A systematic review of economic evaluations on stent-retriever thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke.
Synthesis in Journal of neurology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Methodological Systematic Review of Health Economic Decision Modeling Studies.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses on endovascular thrombectomy in ischemic stroke patients.European radiology · 2022Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of MLC601 in post-stroke functional recovery compared with placebo - the CHIMES & CHIMES-E studies.BMC health services research · 2024Trial
- Optimized density and locations of stroke centers for improved cost effectiveness of mechanical thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke.Journal of neurointerventional surgery · 2024Observational
- Economic evaluation of endovascular treatment for acute ischaemic stroke in Thailand.BMJ open · 2022Article
- The cost of providing mechanical thrombectomy in the UK NHS: a micro-costing study.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2020Article
- Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2019Review
- Which patients with acute stroke due to proximal occlusion should not be treated with endovascular thrombectomy?Neuroradiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOur objective was to review economic evaluations on stent-retriever thrombectomy (SRT) added/not added to intravenous (IV) tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large-vessel occlusion (LVO).
methodsWe conducted a systematic review using several electronic databases and searching for studies published from January 2009 to September 2017. INCLUSION CRITERIA: any publication type reporting the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of SRT in people with AIS secondary to LVO. Quality assessment was undertaken with the CHEERS and the Philips' checklists.
resultsEight original articles (four from North America/four from Europe) were included; of these, seven were model-based cost-effectiveness studies and one was a study conducted alongside a clinical trial. The perspective was the healthcare system in seven studies, and societal in one. The time horizon was lifetime (minimum 20 years) in all but two studies where it was 1 and 5 years. Overall, studies were rated of good quality (mean score 79%; range 70-90). Data sources, effectiveness outcomes and other input parameters were heterogeneous across studies. In three studies, SRT was dominant (less expensive and more effective). In five studies, SRT was more expensive and generated more quality-adjusted life years but had a high probability (79-100%) to be cost-effective at conventional thresholds.
conclusionThis review shows that SRT added/not added to IV t-PA is likely to be cost-effective or even dominant, which is consistent with the opinion from several Health Technology Assessment bodies recommending SRT. However, our findings are supported by primary studies with substantial methodological heterogeneity.
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.