Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35722461›Full record

SynthesisBioMed research international2022

Systematic Review of Existing Stroke Guidelines: Case for a Change.

Tissa Wijeratne, Carmela Sales, Chanith Wijeratne, Leila Karimi, Mihajlo Jakovljevic

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BioMed research international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 6 countries.

Tissa WijeratneSchool of Applied Health, Department of Psychology, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1701-7111
Carmela SalesSchool of Applied Health, Department of Psychology, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9895-5216
Chanith WijeratneMonash Medical School, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5512-6573
Leila KarimiSchool of Applied Health, Department of Psychology, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2364-504X
Mihajlo JakovljevicInstitute of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, Russia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9160-6846
The University of Melbourne · AUMonash Medical Centre · AUTbilisi State University · GEUniversity of Kragujevac · RS

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Methods: We systematically searched for guideline recommendation on the day-to-day use of peripheral inflammatory markers such as NLR published in the English language between January 1, 2005, and October 2020. Any other evidence of system biology-based approach or recommendation was explored within the selected guidelines for this scoping review. Only the latest guideline per writing group was selected. Each guideline was analyzed independently by 2 to 4 authors to determine clinical scenarios explained/given, scientific evidence used, and recommendations presented in the context of system biology. Results: The scoping review found 2,911 titles at the beginning of the search. Final review included with 15 guidelines. Stroke-related organizations wrote sixty-five percent of the guidelines while national ministries wrote a fewer number of guidelines. We were primarily interested in recommendations for acute management in AIS published in the English language. Fifteen eligible guidelines were identified from 15 different countries/regions. None of the guidelines recommended the routine use of peripheral markers of inflammation, such as NLR, among their acute assessment and management recommendations. None of the existing guidelines explored the system biology approach to one of the most complex diseases affecting the human brain, stroke. Conclusions: This systematic review has identified a significant evidence-practice gap in all existing national stroke guidelines published in English medium as of October 2020. These guidelines included the only current "living stroke guidelines," stroke guidelines from Australia with a real opportunity to modernize the living stroke guidelines with systems biology approach, and provide 2020 vision towards better stroke care globally. Investigation of complex disease such as stroke is best served through a systems biology approach. One of the easiest places to start is simple blood tests such as total white cell count and NLR. Systems biology approach point us towards simple tools such immune-inflammatory index (SII) and serial systemic immune inflammatory indices (SSIIi) which should pave the way for the stroke physician community address the challenges in systems biology approach in stroke care. These challenges include translating bench research to the bedside, managing big data (continuous pulse, blood pressure, sleep, oxygen saturation, progressive changes in NLR, SII, SSIIi, etc.). Working with an interdisciplinary team also provides a distinct advantage. Recent adoption of historic WHO-IGAP calls for immediate action. The 2022 World Brain Day campaign on Brain Health for All is the perfect opportunity to raise awareness and start the process.

Indexed as

StrokeAustraliaHumans

Identifiers

PMID35722461
PMCPMC9199531
OpenAlexW4282962046

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.