ArticleCureus2022
Contribution and Effectiveness of Laboratory Testing in the Diagnostic Assessment of Juvenile Ischemic Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack.
Article in Cureus, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Strokes in young people require an extensive diagnostic workup to detect their possible several etiopathogenetic mechanisms. There is no consensus indicating what and when it should be tested. The clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness ratio of laboratory tests is unclear as well. Methods In one series of 104 consecutive juvenile ischemic stroke patients, under 45 years old, admitted between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2017, we considered a wide panel of laboratory biomarkers exploring both the patient's basal status and specific risk factors for thrombotic disorders. To combine conventional and unconventional risk factors, structural defects, and other stroke-related diseases, we defined four categories of etiologic probability. We then studied the contribution of laboratory testing in changing the rate of "definite or probable stroke etiology" and the "proportion of patients with at least one additional risk factor" for stroke. Results The mere clinical assessment clarified stroke etiopathogenesis in 31% of cases. Abnormal values of the panel of biomarkers we considered were found in 30.1% of young ischemic strokes, while 11.5% of patients had unclear or borderline values. The benefit of laboratory assessment consisted of a relevant 14% gain in patients with a "definite or probable stroke etiology." Conclusion Several areas of uncertainty are still pending and herein discussed, such as the low re-testing rate during follow-up and the neglect of some relevant biomarkers. However, our results support the importance of laboratory testing in this setting. An improvement of diagnostic protocols in juvenile ischemic stroke would even increase their effectiveness, and this is still an unsolved issue in the field of cerebrovascular diseases. The same age limit, conventionally considered for juvenile stroke, could be better defined according to the effectiveness of both laboratory and clinical assessment in identifying unconventional stroke risk factors.
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.