ArticleInterventional neurology2018
Support of New Triage Protocol among Acute Stroke Care Providers.
Article in Interventional neurology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of Emergency Room Skip Strategy in Patients Transferred for Mechanical Thrombectomy.Journal of neuroendovascular therapy · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe conducted an online survey to gauge the acceptance of sending acute stroke patients with suspected large vessel occlusion (LVO) directly to an endovascular-capable hospital (ECH) even if that means bypassing a closer alteplase-capable hospital (ACH) without endovascular capability.
methodsThe survey was composed of two cases of acute stroke, one with cortical symptoms suggestive of LVO and the other without. In each case, responders were asked to choose between triaging to a closer ACH or an ECH that is further away and to provide an opinion regarding the maximum extra travel time they would tolerate if they chose the ECH. The survey was sent electronically to national groups of neurologists, emergency department (ED) physicians, emergency medical service (EMS) directors, and stroke coordinators.
resultsThere were 320 responders from 44 states, most of them with 10 years or more of experience. Most of the responders, 72.5%, chose ECH for the LVO case, while 56% chose ACH for the non-LVO case. There were marked differences in responses by specialty: neurology strongly supported ECH for LVO and strongly supported ACH for non-LVO, most ED and EMS chose ECH for both cases, and stroke coordinators were the least supportive of bypassing ACH. Almost all groups agreed on 30 min as the acceptable extra transfer time to ECH.
conclusionAmong the survey responders, there is a broad acceptance of the idea of bypassing ACH and going straight to ECH when LVO is suspected; however, there is less agreement on triaging patients with non-LVO stroke.
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.