ArticleBMJ open2022
Sex differences in outcomes after mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke in the 'real world': protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. 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, 1 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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMechanical thrombectomy (MT) had been regarded as the first-line therapy for acute ischaemic stroke patients. The sex differences in post-MT treatment outcomes were analysed by randomised controlled trial (RCT) studies with inconsistent conclusions. We suggest the results from the real-world data may differ from RCT containing studies. Therefore, the sex difference in non-clinical trial populations needs to be clarified. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In order to obtain relative studies comprehensively, we will search the main document databases, consisting of Web of Science, Medline in Ovid, Embase in Ovid and Cochrane Library, and trials registers, including Clinical Trails register. The clinical outcomes of real-world studies published between January 2015 and March 2022 will be included. The assessment methods of bias risk will be performed according to study type. The inclusion of studies, evaluation of risk and publication bias, data extraction will be implemented by two reviewers, respectively. The primary outcomes include successful recanalisation and 90-day favourable outcome. Secondary outcomes include vascular complication, hospital-related complications, death during hospital stay and follow-up, and intracerebral haemorrhage. The risk bias of observational studies will be evaluated by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. I ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: With no need of ethics approval in this review, results in this review ground on public data. The results of the study will be eventually presented at international conferences or in a related journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021242597.
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.