ReviewCurrent neurology and neuroscience reports2022
Management of Patients with Embolic Stroke of Unknown Source: Interpreting the Evidence in the Light of Clinical Judgement.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Coronavirus disease 2019 and acute cerebrovascular events: a comprehensive overview.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewTo assess the validity of the belief that anticoagulation is not beneficial in patients with embolic stroke of unknown source (ESUS), and to asssess the benefits and safety of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs). RECENT
findingsThe failure of randomized trials to show benefit of anticoagulation in ESUS is probably due to misclassification of large artery atherosclerosis (LAA) as ESUS, as defined by a stenosis ≥ 50%. There are important differences among DOACs. There are a number of problems with dabigatran, and rivaroxaban and edoxaban are not suitable for once-daily dosing. Recent evidence from real-world practice indicates that apixaban is more effective and safer than rivaroxaban. Plaque burden should be included in the definition of LAA. Patients in whom a cardioembolic source is strongly suspected should be anticoagulated; antiplatelet agents are not significantly safer than DOACs, and are not effective in cardioembolic stroke.
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.