ArticleScientific reports2021
Outcome of endovascular treatment within and beyond 6 h without perfusion software.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Endovascular treatment (EVT) has been accepted as the standard of care for patients with acute ischemic stroke. The aim of the present study was to compare clinical outcomes of patients who received EVT within and beyond 6 h from symptom onset to groin puncture without perfusion software in Guangdong district, China. Between March 2017 and May 2018, acute ischemic stroke patients who received EVT from 6 comprehensive stroke centers, were enrolled into the registry study. In this subgroup study, we included all patients who had acute proximal large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation. The demographic, clinical and neuroimaging data were collected from each center. A total of 192 patients were included in this subgroup study. They were divided into two groups: group A (n = 125), within 6 h; group B (n = 67), 6-24 h from symptom onset to groin puncture. There were no substantial differences between these two groups in terms of 90 days favorable outcome (modified Rankin scale [mRS] ≤ 2, P = 0.051) and mortality (P = 0.083), and the risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 h (P = 0.425). The NIHSS (median 16, IQR12-20, group A; median 12, IQR8-18, group B; P = 0.009) and ASPECTS (median 10, IQR8-10, group A; median 9, IQR8-10, group B; P = 0.034) at baseline were higher in group A. The anesthesia method (general anesthesia, 21.3%, group A vs. 1.5% group B, P = 0.001) were also statistically different between the two groups. The NIHSS and ASPECTS were higher, and general anesthesia was also more widely used in group A. Clinical outcomes were not significantly different within 6 h versus 6-24 h from symptom onset to groin puncture in this real world study.
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.