ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Clinical Benefit of First-Pass Recanalization Is Time-Dependent in Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 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.
- Temporary flow arrest using EMBOGUARD™ balloon guide catheter may improve functional outcomes in acute stroke thrombectomy: a multicenter retrospective study.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Observational
- Is first-pass effect a meaningful metric to evaluate thrombectomy technologies?Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical benefit can be time-dependent even after first-pass recanalization (FPR) in endovascular treatment of acute stroke. This study aimed to evaluate the association between favorable outcome and FPR under a specific time frame. Patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy were retrospectively reviewed. Recanalization status was categorized into four groups based on FPR and dichotomized time from groin puncture to recanalization (P-to-R time). Favorable outcomes were compared between groups. A total of 458 patients were included. As the cutoff of P-to-R time for favorable outcome was 30 min, recanalization status was categorized into FPR (+) with a P-to-R time ≤ 30 min (Group 1), FPR (-) with a P-to-R time ≤ 30 min (Group 2), FPR (+) with a P-to-R time > 30 min (Group 3), and FPR (-) with a P-to-R time > 30 min (Group 4). Favorable outcomes in Group 3 (37.5%) were significantly less frequent than those in Group 1 (60.4%,
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.