Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30091041›Full record

ReviewClinical neuroradiology2018

Stroke Transfer and its Organizational Paradigm : Review of Organizational Paradigms and the Impact on Outcome.

Lili Détraz, Marielle Ernst, Romain Bourcier

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical neuroradiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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.

Lili DétrazDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Guillaume et René Laennec University Hospital, Nantes, France.
Marielle ErnstRadiology Department, University of Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Romain BourcierDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Guillaume et René Laennec University Hospital, Nantes, France. romain.bourcier2@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6506-4019

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the clinical recognition of endovascular therapy (EVT) for stroke treatment is recent (2015), some organizational issues, such as the "drip and ship (DS) versus mothership (MS)" access to EVT remain unanswered. There is growing pressure to guarantee immediate access to EVT with limited human resources and infrastructures. As results from prospective studies are missing, a review of the existing literature dealing with clinical retrospective studies was carried out. Most of the studies did not report a significant difference with respect to the adverse effects for patients treated by EVT according to the organizational paradigm of care. Several studies did not report a significant difference concerning the 3 months functional outcomes regarding the organizational paradigm. Only two studies built theoretical models of the best outcomes and observed a superiority of the DS only if the door to needle time was less than 30 min. Waiting for the results of ongoing randomized controlled trials, this review of articles presenting patients treated with either MS or DS provides an overview but does not emphasize a superiority of a given paradigm; however, it highlights the inequalities of access to EVT according to the organization of care in different areas.

Indexed as

Outcome and Process Assessment, Health CareActivities of Daily LivingEndovascular ProceduresFollow-Up StudiesHumansModels, TheoreticalOdds RatioPatient SafetyPatient TransferStrokeTriageDrip and shipEndovascular treatmentMother shipOrganizationSystematic review

Identifiers

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.