ReviewAmerican journal of translational research2020
Efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke in cancer patients: a systemic review and meta-analysis.
Review in American journal of translational research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke patients with active cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Pooled it
- Malignancy-Associated Pulmonary Embolism: Mortality, Recurrence, and Bleeding Risks.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Intravenous thrombolysis in patients with acute ischaemic stroke and active cancer (the ITACA-stroke study).Journal of neurology · 2025Observational
- Intravenous thrombolysis in the context of stroke and cancer.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2025Review
- Endovascular treatment in ischemic stroke with active cancer: retrospective analysis of university stroke center data.Neurological research and practice · 2025Article
- Prediction of hemorrhagic transformation after thrombolysis based on machine learning models combined with platelet distribution width-to-count ratio.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Review
- Acute reperfusion treatment and secondary prevention of cancer-related stroke: comprehensive overview and proposal of clinical algorithm.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2023Review
- Endovascular treatment in patients with acute ischemic stroke and cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis.European stroke journal · 2022Review
- Meta-Analysis of Predictive Role of Early Neurological Deterioration after Intravenous Thrombolysis.Emergency medicine international · 2022Article
- Cancer and stroke: commonly encountered by clinicians, but little evidence to guide clinical approach.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2022Review
- Prognosis of Acute Ischaemic Stroke Patients with Cancer: A National Inpatient Sample Study.Cancers · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) in cancer patients remained uncertain due to low level evidence in the latest guideline for AIS. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of IVT in cancer patients with stronger evidence. We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov until April 2020 for studies reporting outcomes of functional independence, hemorrhagic transformation (HT), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (SICH), major bleeding (MB), in-hospital mortality or 3-month mortality after IVT for AIS in cancer patients. For each outcome, the odds ratio between cancer and non-cancer patients, the risk difference between gastrointestinal and other malignancy, and the proportion in cancer patients were calculated. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between cancer and non-cancer patients in favorable outcome, HT, SICH, MB, in-hospital mortality and 3-month mortality. Furthermore, there's no significant difference between patients with gastrointestinal and other malignancy in favorable outcome, HT, SICH, MB and 3-month mortality. In race-based subgroup analysis, Asians implied greater likelihood of HT and SICH than non-Asians. Therefore, the study confirmed and strengthened the validity of the guideline with stronger evidence that cancer shouldn't be an exclusion criterion of IVT. Inconsistent with the guideline, gastrointestinal malignancy may not remain an absolute contraindication of IVT while Asians implied increased HT and SICH, which needed further exploration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32913551PMC7476124W3085078554What 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.