SynthesisNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2023
A systematic review of ambulance service-based randomised controlled trials in stroke.
Synthesis in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pre-hospital transdermal glyceryl trinitrate for transient ischaemic attack: Data from the RIGHT-2 trial.European journal of neurology · 2024Trial
- Impact of regional medical network systems on emergency transport time for older patients in Japan: a retrospective observational study.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreatment for stroke is time-dependent, and ambulance services play a vital role in the early recognition, assessment and transportation of stroke patients. Innovations which begin in ambulance services to expedite delivery of treatments for stroke are developing. However, research delivery in ambulance services is novel, developing and not fully understood.
aimsTo synthesise literature encompassing ambulance service-based randomised controlled interventions for acute stroke with consideration to the characteristics of the type of intervention, consent modality, time intervals and issues unique to research delivery in ambulance services. Online searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL and WHO IRCTP databases and hand searches identified 15 eligible studies from 538. Articles were heterogeneous in nature and meta-analysis was partially available as 13 studies reported key time intervals, but terminology varied. Randomised interventions were evident across all points of contact with ambulance services: identification of stroke during the call for help, higher dispatch priority assigned to stroke, on-scene assessment and clinical interventions, direct referral to comprehensive stroke centres and definitive care delivery at scene. Consent methods ranged between informed patient, waiver and proxy modalities with country-specific variation. Challenges unique to the prehospital setting comprise the geographical distribution of ambulance resources, low recruitment rates, prolonged recruitment phases, management of investigational medicinal product and incomplete datasets.
conclusionResearch opportunities exist across all points of contact between stroke patients and ambulance services, but randomisation and consent remain novel. Early collaboration and engagement between trialists and ambulance services will alleviate some of the complexities reported. REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO 2018CRD42018075803.
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.