ArticleStroke2021
Factors Associated With Decreased Accuracy of Modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarct Scoring Among Neurointerventionalists During Thrombectomy.
Article in Stroke, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Refining reperfusion assessment with flat-panel detector CT: association with final infarct volume after endovascular thrombectomy.European stroke journal · 2026Article
- Trends in device utilization and procedural outcomes of endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke: A 10-year review of individual institutional experience.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2025Article
- Value of Immediate Flat Panel Perfusion Imaging after Endovascular Therapy (AFTERMATH): A Proof of Concept Study.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2024Article
- Efficacy and safety of spot heating and ultrasound irradiation on in vitro and in vivo thrombolysis models.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2022Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background and Purpose: The modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarct (mTICI) score is used to grade angiographic outcome after endovascular thrombectomy. We sought to identify factors that decrease the accuracy of intraprocedural mTICI. Methods: We performed a 2-center retrospective cohort study comparing operator (n=6) mTICI scores to consensus scores from blinded adjudicators. Groups were also assessed by dichotomizing mTICI scores to 0–2a versus 2b–3. Results: One hundred thirty endovascular thrombectomy procedures were included. Operators and adjudicators had a pairwise agreement in 96 cases (73.8%). Krippendorff α was 0.712. Multivariate analysis showed endovascular thrombectomy overnight (odds ratio [OR]=3.84 [95% CI, 1.22–12.1]), lacking frontal (OR, 5.66 [95 CI, 1.36–23.6]), or occipital (OR, 7.18 [95 CI, 2.12–24.3]) region reperfusion, and higher operator mTICI scores (OR, 2.16 [95 CI, 1.16–4.01]) were predictive of incorrectly scoring mTICI intraprocedurally. With dichotomized mTICI scores, increasing number of passes was associated with increased risk of operator error (OR, 1.93 [95 CI, 1.22–3.05]). Conclusions: In our study, mTICI disagreement between operator and adjudicators was observed in 26.2% of cases. Interventions that took place between 22:30 and 4:00, featured frontal or occipital region nonperfusion, higher operator mTICI scores, and increased number of passes had higher odds of intraprocedural mTICI inaccuracy.
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.