ArticleHerz2019
[Embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) : How much monitoring is necessary?]
Article in Herz, 2019. 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.
- Scanning of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation as an etiological risk factor in patients with acute ischemic stroke: prospective study.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicinaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The clinical construct of embolic stroke of unknown source (ESUS) was first described in 2014. It is defined as cryptogenic ischemic stroke after the exclusion of a lacunar infarct, a significant (≥50%) stenosis of extracranial or intracranial arteries and a cardiac source of embolism. Initially, there was hope that these patients would benefit from anticoagulation. This was based on the suspicion that imaging criteria of stroke mimic features of embolism from cardiac sources or the great arteries. In two large randomized trials with 12,600 patients neither rivaroxaban nor dabigatran could reduce the risk of recurrent stroke. Based on these results, current research is focused on paroxysmal atrial fibrillation as a potential cause of stroke in these patients. Several randomized trials could show that by prolongation of monitoring to 30 days atrial fibrillation can be detected in approximately 10% of the patients. Using continuous monitoring (e. g. by implantable loop recorders) atrial fibrillation can even be detected in one quarter of the patients. Not all stroke patients can receive such an intensive monitoring. Therefore, this article summarizes the evidence and presents the resulting recommendations for patient selection and staged rhythm diagnostics and discusses a recently presented algorithm of an expert group for use in daily clinical practice.
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.