ArticleLancet (London, England)2019
Considering prehospital stroke trials: did RIGHT-2 get it right?
Article in Lancet (London, England), 2019. 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.
- Regulation of cerebral blood flow in humans: physiology and clinical implications of autoregulation.Physiological reviews · 2021Review
- Evaluation of Systolic Blood Pressure, Use of Aspirin and Clopidogrel, and Stroke Recurrence in the Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke Trial.JAMA network open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30738650What 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.