SynthesisPediatric neurology2024
Neuroimaging and Neurological Outcomes in Perinatal Arterial Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Pediatric neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Interventions on Participation in Children and Adolescents With Unilateral Cerebral Palsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2026Review
- Scalp high-frequency activity differentiates neonates with seizures from healthy neonates and indicates postneonatal epilepsy risk.Epilepsia · 2026Article
- Predictors of Drug-Resistant Epilepsy After Perinatal Stroke.Pediatric neurology · 2026Observational
- Long-Term Cognitive and Language Outcomes at the Age of Seven Following Arterial Presumed Perinatal Ischemic Stroke: A Case Report.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Paediatric cranial ultrasound: abnormalities of the brain in term neonates and young infants.Insights into imaging · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrediction of outcomes in perinatal arterial ischemic stroke (PAIS) is challenging. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether infarct characteristics can predict outcomes in PAIS.
methodsA systematic search was conducted using five databases in January 2023. Studies were included if the sample included children with neonatal or presumed PAIS; if infarct size, location, or laterality was indicated; and if at least one motor, cognitive, or language outcome was reported. The level of evidence and risk of bias were evaluated using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool. Meta-analyses were conducted comparing infarct size or location with neurological outcomes when at least three studies could be analyzed.
resultsEighteen full-text articles were included in a systematic review with nine included in meta-analysis. Meta-analyses revealed that small strokes were associated with a lower risk of cerebral palsy/hemiplegia compared with large strokes (risk ratio [RR] = 0.263, P = 0.001) and a lower risk of epilepsy (RR = 0.182, P < 0.001). Middle cerebral artery (MCA) infarcts were not associated with a significantly different risk of cerebral palsy/hemiplegia compared with non-MCA strokes (RR = 1.220, P = 0.337). Bilateral infarcts were associated with a 48% risk of cerebral palsy/hemiplegia, a 26% risk of epilepsy, and a 58% risk of cognitive impairment.
conclusionsLarger stroke size was associated with worse outcomes across multiple domains. Widely heterogeneous reporting of infarct characteristics and outcomes limits the comparison of studies and the analysis of outcomes. More consistent reporting of infarct characteristics and outcomes will be important to advance research in this field.
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.