ArticleMedicine2020
Efficacy and safety of different doses of tenecteplase for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke: A protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Efficacy and Safety of Ischemic Stroke Therapies: An Umbrella Review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute ischemic stroke (AIS) has become the major reason of causing death around the world. As a newer generation fibrinolytic agent, the potential of tenecteplase in treating AIS has been determined in clinical studies and meta-analysis. However, various doses have been prescribed for tenecteplase in clinical practice, and the optimal dose is not yet clear.
methodsWe will perform a systematic search to capture all potential randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of persons with confirmed AIS who were instructed to administer tenecteplase that report at least one outcome in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Two reviewers will independently check the titles, abstracts, and full-texts, extracting data, assessing the risk of bias and evaluating the certainty of evidence. We will use a random-effect model based on the Bayesian framework to completely direct and network meta-analyses. We will also test the robustness of all pooled results through conducting subgroup analyses according to the following criteria: DISCUSSION:: Our systematic review and network meta-analysis will generate several valuable findings and have several strengths including:We therefore believe that findings from this network meta-analysis will benefit future study design and improve evidence-based treatment of AIS. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We will disseminate the results from the present study through submitting it to conferences or peer-reviewed journal. PROTOCOL REGISTRY: The protocol of our systematic review and network meta-analysis was registered in International Plateform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (INPLASY) platform with an approval number of INPLASY2020100086 (https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2020-10-0086/). Moreover, this protocol was funded through a protocol registry.
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.