Trial reportBMJ open2019
Door-to-needle time for thrombolysis: a secondary analysis of the TIPS cluster randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives in improving stroke care and the facilitators and barriers to their implementation: a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2021Pooled it
- Evaluation of a multicomponent intervention to shorten thrombolytic door-to-needle time in stroke patients in China (MISSION): A cluster-randomized controlled trial.PLoS medicine · 2022Trial
- Influence of Decision-Makers' Perceived Risk on the Propensity for Intravenous Thrombolysis in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Cross-Sectional Study.Nursing open · 2026Article
- Interventions for the uptake of evidence-based recommendations in acute stroke settings.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Implementation of the Helsinki Model at West Tallinn Central Hospital.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- Article
- Hyperacute stroke thrombolysis via telemedicine: a multicentre study of performance, safety and clinical efficacy.BMJ open · 2022Observational
- Development and Pilot Implementation of TACTICS VR: A Virtual Reality-Based Stroke Management Workflow Training Application and Training Framework.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe current study aimed to evaluate the effects of a multi-component in-hospital intervention on the door-to-needle time for intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke.
designThis study was a post hoc analysis of door-to-needle time data from a cluster-randomised controlled trial testing an intervention to boost intravenous thrombolysis implementation.
settingThe study was conducted among 20 hospitals from three Australian states. PARTICIPANT: Eligible hospitals had a Stroke Care Unit or staffing equivalent to a stroke physician and a nurse, and were in the early stages of implementing thrombolysis.
interventionThe intervention was multifaceted and developed using the behaviour change wheel and informed by breakthrough collaborative methodology using components of the health behaviour change wheel. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome for this analysis was door-to-needle time for thrombolysis and secondary outcome was the proportion of patients received thrombolysis within 60 min of hospital arrival.
resultsThe intervention versus control difference in the door-to-needle times was non-significant overall nor significant by hospital classification. To provide additional context for the findings, we also evaluated the results within intervention and control hospitals. During the active-intervention period, the intervention hospitals showed a significant decrease in the door-to-needle time of 9.25 min (95% CI: -16.93 to 1.57), but during the post-intervention period, the result was not significant. During the active intervention period, control hospitals also showed a significant decrease in the door-to-needle time of 5.26 min (95% CI: -8.37 to -2.14) and during the post-intervention period, this trend continued with a decrease of 12.13 min (95% CI: -17.44 to 6.81).
conclusionAcross these primary stroke care centres in Australia, a secular trend towards shorter door-to-needle times across both intervention and control hospitals was evident, however the TIPS (Thrombolysis ImPlementation in Stroke) intervention showed no overall effect on door-to-needle times in the randomised comparison. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Trial Registration-URL: http://www.anzctr.org.au/ Unique Identifier: ACTRN 12613000939796.
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.