ArticleJournal of telemedicine and telecare2024
Outcomes in patients with acute stroke treated at a comprehensive stroke center using telemedicine versus in-person assessments.
Article in Journal of telemedicine and telecare, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stroke metrics, safety, and outcomes of telemedicine-administered thrombolytics for acute ischemic stroke: A meta-analysis.World journal of critical care medicine · 2025Article
- In-hospital stroke protocol outcomes before and after the implementation of neurological assessments by telemedicine: an observational case-control study.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTelemedicine has been shown to be a safe and effective modality to assess and treat patients with acute stroke who present to a community hospital. There are no previous reports on using telemedicine to treat patients with acute stroke who present to a comprehensive stroke center. We report here the outcomes of patients with acute stroke treated in 2021 at our comprehensive stroke center using telemedicine versus an in-person assessment.
methodsPatients with acute ischemic stroke who were treated after either a telemedicine or in-person assessment at our hospital in 2021 were identified by a retrospective chart review. The primary outcomes collected were door-to-needle (DTN) time for alteplase (tPA) administration, door-to-puncture (DTP) time for endovascular thrombectomy, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) rates and 3-month mortality.
resultsThere were 302 patients with acute stroke treated at our hospital in 2021. Of these, 18.2% (n = 55/302) were treated using telemedicine. There were no differences in any of the outcomes between patients treated using telemedicine versus an in-person assessment: DTN (35.5 min (n = 42) vs 33 min (n = 182), p < 0.76), DTP (86.5 min (n = 30) vs 85 min (n = 134), p < 0.97), sICH (0% (n = 0/55) vs 1.6% (n = 4/245, p < 0.59) or 3-month mortality (20.6% (n = 7/34) vs 22.1% (n = 40/181), p < 0.29). DISCUSSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to report on outcomes for acute stroke patients treated using telemedicine at a comprehensive stroke center. In this study, there were no differences in outcomes between patients treated using telemedicine versus an in-person assessment.
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.