ReviewCureus2023
Comparing the Effectiveness of Intravenous Tissue Plasminogen Activator and Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Minor Stroke: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is thrombolysis beneficial in elderly patients with minor ischemic stroke?Frontiers in stroke · 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
8 authors at 6 institutions in 8 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes between dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) versus intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (IV t-PA) in patients with minor stroke. This meta-analysis follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Two authors independently conducted online database searches using PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE to identify articles published in English language from inception to September 5, 2023. Outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included all-cause mortality, stroke incidence, and functional outcomes (measured by modified ranking scale (mRS) scores of 0 to 1). A total of three studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and included in the final analysis. Pooled analysis showed that the risk of all-cause mortality was not significantly different between the t-PA group and DAPT group (relative risk (RR): 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.32-4.06). Compared with those treated with DAPT, there was no significant difference in t-PA in terms of the number of patients with a favorable functional outcome (defined as an mRS score of 0-1). The risk of stroke was not significantly different between the t-PA group and DAPT group (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.82). The analysis, based on three studies, revealed no significant differences between t-PA and DAPT regarding all-cause mortality, stroke incidence, and functional outcomes.
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.