Trial reportBMC cardiovascular disorders2020
Thrombolysis implementation intervention and clinical outcome: a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized trial.
Trial report in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2020. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions for the uptake of evidence-based recommendations in acute stroke settings.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMultiple studies have attempted to increase the rate of intravenous thrombolysis for ischemic stroke using interventions to promote adherence to guidelines. Still, many of them did not measure individual-level impact. This study aimed to make a posthoc comparison of the clinical outcomes of patients in the "Thrombolysis ImPlementation in Stroke (TIPS)" study, which aimed to improve rates of intravenous thrombolysis in Australia.
methodsA posthoc analysis was conducted using individual-level patient data. Excellent (Three-month post treatment modified Rankin Score 0-2) and poor clinical outcome (Three-month post treatment modified Rankin Score 5-6) and post treatment parenchymal haematoma were the three main outcomes, and a mixed logistic regression model was used to assess the difference between the intervention and control groups.
resultsThere was a non-significant higher odds of having an excellent clinical outcome of 57% (odds ratio: 1.57; 95% CI: 0.73-3.39) and 33% (odds ratio: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.73-2.44) during the active-and post-intervention period respectively, for the intervention compared to the control group. A non-significant lower odds of having a poor clinical outcome was also found in the intervention, relative to control group of 4% (odds ratio: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.56-2.07) and higher odds of having poor outcome of 44% (odds ratio: 1.44 95% CI: 0.61-3.41) during both active and post-intervention period respectively. Similarly, a non-significant lower odds of parenchymal haematoma was also found for the intervention group during the both active- (odds ratio: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.21-1.32) and post-intervention period (odds ratio: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.36-2.52).
conclusionThe TIPS multi-component implementation approach was not effective in reducing the odds of post-treatment severe disability at 90 days, or post-thrombolysis hemorrhage.
trial registrationClinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.anzctr.org.au/ Unique Identifier: ACTRN12613000939796 .
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.