ArticleBMC neurology2019
Barriers from calling ambulance after recognizing stroke differed in adults younger or older than 75 years old in China.
Article in BMC neurology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction of Late Hospital Arrival in Patients with Mild and Rapidly Improving Acute Ischemic Stroke in a Rural Area of China.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2023Article
- Clinical Significance and Value of Serum Homocysteine and Urine 11 Dehydrothromboxane B2 Combined with Transferrin-Specific Peptide in the Diagnosis of Cerebral Apoplexy.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
- Awareness, Recognition, and Response to Stroke among the General Public-An Observational Study.Journal of neurosciences in rural practice · 2021Article
- Early Hospital Arrival After Acute Ischemic Stroke Is Associated With Family Members' Knowledge About Stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Barriers to Effective Prehospital and Hyperacute Stroke Care in India: A Physician Perspective.Journal of emergencies, trauma, and shockArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs health behavior varies with increasing age, we aimed to examine the potential barriers in calling emergency medical services (EMS) after recognizing a stroke among 40-74- and 75-99-year-old adults.
methodsData were obtained from a cross-sectional community-based study (FAST-RIGHT) that was conducted from January 2017 to May 2017 and involved adults (age ≥ 40 years) across 69 administrative areas in China. A subgroup of residents (153675) who recognized stroke symptoms was analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression models were performed in the 40-74 and 75-99 age groups, separately, to determine the factors associated with wait-and-see behaviors at the onset of a stroke.
resultsIn the 40-74 and 75-99 age groups, the rates of participants who chose "Self-observation at home" were 3.0% (3912) and 3.5% (738), respectively; the rates of "Wait for family, then go to hospital" were 31.7% (42071) and 33.1% (6957), respectively. Rural residence, living with one's spouse, low income (< 731 US $ per annum), having a single avenue to learn about stroke, and having friends with stroke were factors associated with waiting for one's family in both groups. However, unlike in the 40-74 age group, sex, number of children, family history, and stroke history did not influence the behaviors at stroke onset in the 75-99 age group.
conclusionsDifferent barriers from recognizing stroke and calling an ambulance exist in the 40-74 and 75-99 age groups in this specific population. Different strategies that mainly focus on changing the "Wait for family" behavior and emphasize on immediately calling EMS are recommended for both age groups.
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.