Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31062047›Full record

ArticleHerz2019

[Embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) : How much monitoring is necessary?]

T Stegmann, R Wachter, W-R Schäbitz

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 43% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

T StegmannKlinik und Poliklinik für Kardiologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Deutschland.
R WachterKlinik und Poliklinik für Kardiologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Deutschland. Rolf.Wachter@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.
W-R SchäbitzKlinik für Neurologie, Bethel-EvKB, Burgsteig 13, 33617, Bielefeld, Deutschland.
Klinik und Poliklinik für Neurologie · DEBethel University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Atrial FibrillationIntracranial EmbolismStrokeHumansAnticoagulationCryptogenic strokeParoxysmal atrial fibrillationRhythm monitoringRisk stratification

Identifiers

PMID31062047
OpenAlexW2990065582

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.