Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30625224›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2019

Efficacy and safety of sonothombolysis versus non-sonothombolysis in patients with acute ischemic stroke: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Zhouqing Chen, Tao Xue, Huachen Huang, Jiayi Xu, Sandhya Shankar, Hao Yu, Zhong Wang

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Stimuli-Responsive Materials for Biomedical Applications.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2025
    Review
  5. Sonothrombolysis for Ischemic Stroke.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

7 authors.

Zhouqing ChenDepartment of Neurosurgery & Brain and Nerve Research Laboratory, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China.
Tao XueDepartment of Neurosurgery & Brain and Nerve Research Laboratory, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China.
Huachen HuangDepartment of Neurology, First affiliate Hospital, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, Heilongjiang Province, China.
Jiayi XuDepartment of Ophthalmology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China.
Sandhya ShankarDepartment of Neurology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Hao YuDepartment of Neurosurgery, The First People's Hospital of Nantong city, Nantong, Jiangsu Province, China.
Zhong WangDepartment of Neurosurgery & Brain and Nerve Research Laboratory, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7342-0845

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that inconsistent results of safety and efficacy between sonothombolysis vs. non-sonothombolysis in acute ischemic stroke (AIS). We implemented a meta-analysis to explore the value of sonothrombolysis in AIS treatment. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which had evaluated sonothrombolysis or ultrasound thrombolysis in AIS. One hundred five studies were retrieved and analyzed, among them, 7 RCTs were included in the current meta-analysis. In comparison with the non-sonothombolysis, sonothrombolysis significantly improved complete recanalization (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.51 to 3.08, P < 0.001), complete or partial recanalization (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.88, P = 0.002), there is also a tendency to improvement of ≥ 4 points in NIHSS score (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.07, P = 0.057). However, sonothrombolysis and non-sonothrombolysis had insignificant differences in neurological recovery and adverse events. In subgroup analysis, we found that "With t-PA", "NIHSS > 15", "Treatment time ≤ 150min", and "Age ≤ 65 years" are potential favorable factors for efficacy outcomes of sonothombolysis. Sonothrombolysis can significantly increase the rate of recanalization in patients with AIS compared with non-sonothrombolysis, but there is no significant effect on improving neurological functional recovery and avoiding complications.

Indexed as

Brain IschemiaHumansMechanical ThrombolysisPublication BiasRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRiskStrokeTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID30625224
PMCPMC6326494

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.