ReviewInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2026
The impact of funding on the quality and interpretation of systematic reviews of mechanical thrombectomy in stroke patients.
Review in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evidence Map Analysis on Randomized Controlled Trials: Chinese Patent Medicines and Classic Traditional Chinese Medicine Prescriptions.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Factors Influencing the Association of 24-hour National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale & 90-day Modified Rankin Score.Clinical neuroradiology · 2025Article
- Differences in the reporting of conflicts of interest and sponsorships in systematic reviews with meta-analyses in dentistry: an examination of factors associated with their reporting.Research integrity and peer review · 2024Article
- The methodological quality assessment of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome using AMSTAR2.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
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
BackgroundFunding may impact the quality and findings of systematic reviews (SRs). We aimed to compare the methodological quality of funded and non-funded SRs that investigated the outcomes in ischemic stroke patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search strategy in different databases, including Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline (including epub ahead of print, in-process & other non-indexed citations), PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection to retrieve all relevant SRs. Random sequence generation matched each funded SR with a non-funded one. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-2 tool was used to assess the bias and quality of the included SRs. We also used uni- and multivariate analysis to perform our analysis, and results were expressed in odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsWe retrieved 150 articles, which were randomized and matched into 100 SRs, including 50 funded and 50 non-funded studies. By multivariate analysis, we found that including randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (OR: 5.7; 95% CI: 1.8-17.8; p = 0.003) and reporting conflict of interests (OR: 5.2; 95 CI: 1.1-24; p = 0.036) were the only significant differences between funded and non-funded SRs. No significant differences were found regarding the overall confidence for low-quality (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.09-3.2; p = 0.49) and moderate/high-quality SRs (OR: 0.17; 95% CI: 0.02-1.87; p = 0.14).ConclusionFunded studies tend to include RCTs more often and report conflict of interests with no significant impact on overall confidence.
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.