ArticleJournal of stroke2022
CT- versus MRI-Based Imaging for Thrombolysis and Mechanical Thrombectomy in Ischemic Stroke: Analysis from the Austrian Stroke Registry.
Article in Journal of stroke, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of magnetic resonance imaging- vs. computed tomography-guided reperfusion in acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Pooled it
- MR Imaging versus Noncontrast CT for Selecting Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke of Large Vessel Occlusion for Endovascular Thrombectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of stroke imaging selection modality on endovascular thrombectomy outcomes in the early and extended time windows: A meta-analysis.Brain and behavior · 2024Pooled it
- Chinese Stroke Association guidelines for clinical management of ischaemic cerebrovascular diseases: executive summary and 2023 update.Stroke and vascular neurology · 2023Guideline
- MRI vs CT for Baseline Imaging Evaluation in Acute Large Artery Ischemic Stroke: A Subanalysis of the SWIFT-DIRECT TrialNeurology · 2024Trial
- Reducing Door-to-Puncture Time with a Streamlined MRI-First Workflow for Endovascular Thrombectomy.Journal of neuroendovascular therapy · 2026Article
- Current and future trends in acute ischemic stroke treatment: direct-to-angiography suite, middle vessel occlusion, large core, and minor strokes.European journal of radiology open · 2023Article
- Mode of Imaging Study and Endovascular Therapy for a Large Ischemic Core: Insights From the RESCUE-Japan LIMIT.Journal of stroke · 2023Article
- Minimal Imaging Requirements.Journal of neuroendovascular therapy · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeIt is unclear whether a particular stroke imaging modality offers an advantage for the acute stroke treatment. The aim of this study was to compare procedure times, efficacy and safety of thrombolysis and/or thrombectomy based on computed tomography (CT) versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acute stroke imaging.
methodsData of stroke patients who received intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and/or mechanical thrombectomy (MT) were extracted from a nationwide, prospective stroke unit registry and categorized according to initial imaging modality. Study endpoints included procedure times, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), early neurological improvement, 3-month functional outcome by modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and mortality.
resultsStroke patients (n=16,799) treated with IVT and 2,248 treated with MT were included. MRI-guided patients (n=2,599) were younger, had less comorbidities and higher rates of strokes with unknown onset as compared to CT-guided patients. In patients treated with IVT, no differences were observed regarding the rates of functional outcome by mRS 0-1 (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.05), sICH (adjusted OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.08), and mortality (adjusted OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.22). Patients undergoing MT selected by MRI as compared to CT showed equal rates of functional outcome by mRS 0-2 (adjusted OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.16), sICH (adjusted OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.69), and mortality (adjusted OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.09). MRI-guided patients showed a significant intrahospital delay of about 20 minutes in both the IVT and the MT group.
conclusionsThis large non-randomized comparison study indicates that CT- and MRI-guided patient selection for IVT/MT may perform equally well in terms of functional outcome and safety.
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.