ReviewCurrent neurology and neuroscience reports2022
Mobile Stroke Units: Current Evidence and Impact.
Review in Current neurology and neuroscience reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emergency Medical Services dispatcher recognition of stroke: A systematic review.European stroke journal · 2024Pooled it
- Current Status and Future Aspect of Digital Health Innovation in Stroke Prevention and Management.Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis · 2025Review
- Opportunities in stroke care at safety net hospitals: A socioecological perspective.Equity neuroscience · 2025Article
- Mobile stroke units services in Germany: A cost-effectiveness modeling perspective on catchment zones, operating modes, and staffing.European journal of neurology · 2025Article
- A retrospective study on machine learning-assisted stroke recognition for medical helpline calls.NPJ digital medicine · 2023Article
- Telemedicine in neurology: advances and possibilities.Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewSeveral approaches have been developed to optimize prehospital systems for acute stroke given poor access and significant delays to timely treatment. Specially equipped ambulances that directly initiate treatment, known as Mobile Stroke Units (MSUs), have rapidly proliferated across the world. This review provides a comprehensive summary on the efficacy of MSUs in acute stroke, its various applications beyond thrombolysis, as well as the establishment, optimal setting and cost-effectiveness of incorporating an MSU into healthcare systems. RECENT
findingsMSUs speed stroke treatment into the first "golden hour" when better outcomes from thrombolysis are achieved. While evidence for the positive impact of MSUs on outcomes was previously unavailable, two recent landmark controlled trials, B_PROUD and BEST-MSU, show that MSUs result in significantly lesser disability compared to conventional ambulance care. Emerging literature prove the significant impact of MSUs. Adaptability however remains limited by significant upfront financial investment, challenges with reimbursements and pending evidence on their cost-effectiveness.
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.