ArticleStroke2019
Outcomes Among Patients With Ischemic Stroke Treated With Intravenous tPA (Tissue-Type Plasminogen Activator) via Telemedicine.
Article in Stroke, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Telestroke activity across Europe; The results of a European Stroke Organization survey.Frontiers in stroke · 2023Article
- Inpatient Teleneurology Follow-up Has Comparable Outcomes to In-Person Neurology Follow-up.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2022Article
- Stroke and digital technology: a wake-up call from COVID-19 pandemic.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background and Purpose- Telemedicine is increasingly utilized for intravenous tPA (tissue-type plasminogen activator) delivery. The comparative safety of leaving tPA-treated patients at a presenting (spoke) hospital (drip-and-stay) or transferring patients to a central treating (hub) hospital (drip-and-ship) is not established. We sought to compare outcomes between drip-and-ship and drip-and-stay patients treated with tPA via telemedicine. We hypothesized that there would be no differences in short-term outcomes of in-hospital mortality, length of stay, or discharge disposition or in 90-day outcomes between groups. Methods- We retrospectively identified patients treated with tPA at 17 spoke hospitals between September 2015 and December 2016. Demographic, clinical, and outcome data were obtained from a prospective telemedicine registry. We used negative binomial, multinomial, and logistic regression analyses to evaluate length of stay, discharge disposition, and inpatient mortality, respectively. We compared the proportion of patients with 90-day modified Rankin Scale score <2 by group. Results- Among 430 tPA-treated patients, 232 (53.9%) were transferred to the hub after treatment. The median arrival National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was higher for drip-and-ship (10; interquartile range, 5-18) compared with drip-and-stay patients (6; interquartile range, 4-10; P<0.001). Unadjusted length of stay was longer in drip-and-stay patients (incidence rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.95). There were no significant differences in adjusted length of stay, hospital mortality, or discharge disposition. Among the 64% of patients with complete 90-day modified Rankin Scale score, the proportion with good outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score <2) did not differ between groups. Conclusions- We found no differences in measured outcomes between drip-and-ship and drip-and-stay patients treated in our network, although our study may be underpowered to detect small differences.
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.