ArticleBMJ open2020
Endovascular treatment versus standard medical treatment for acute basilar artery occlusion: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAcute basilar artery occlusion (BAO) can cause posterior circulation stroke. There are two predominant therapies for BAO: standard medical treatment (SMT) and SMT plus endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). However, a conclusive systematic comparison of the safety and efficacy of SMT and those of SMT plus EVT for the treatment of BAO is lacking. Thus, a systematic review and meta-analysis is needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SMT and SMT plus EVT for the treatment of BAO. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol is drafted referring to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols guidelines. We will search eligible studies from four main databases including MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies published before 1 October 2020 will be included. Two reviewers in our team will conduct the study selection and data extraction independently. Risk of bias will be assessed by Cochrane Collaboration criteria and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for RCTs and observational studies, respectively. We will assess the good functional outcomes defining the modified Rankin scale score ≤2 at 90 days after treatment, short-term stroke severity as National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at 24 hours after intervention, and successful recanalisation as a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction scale score of ≥2b after intervention. Also, safety outcomes will be assessed. The performance of this meta-analysis will depend on the quantity of included studies. The assessment of study heterogeneity will be performed by the I ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No collection of primary data from patients is needed. Therefore, the ethical approval is unnecessary. The results may be presented in a peer-reviewed journal and related conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020176764.
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.