ArticleNeurological research and practice2024
INTERP: Interpreter requirements needed for tissue plasminogen activator evaluations and resulting performance: a retrospective review.
Article in Neurological research and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo examine the influence of interpreter service needs (IS) on rt-PA administration time metrics.
methodsRetrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data from Comprehensive Stroke Center database (January 2011- April 1, 2021) and EMR. INCLUSION: Subjects for whom a "stroke code" was activated. Excluded in-house strokes. Baseline characteristics, frequency of rt-PA, rt-PA exclusions and time metrics, NIHSS were compared between patients who did or did not require IS. Analyses utilized ANOVA, t-Test, Brown-Mood Median Test, or Pearson's Chi-squared test as appropriate.
resultsOf 2,191 patients with stroke code activations, 81 had a documented need for IS. Rt-PA was administered in 9 IS and 358 non-IS patients. Median baseline NIHSS was higher in rt-PA group (9±8 vs 3±9, p<0.005). In IS patients, there were no differences in baseline characteristics between those who received rt-PA and those who did not, including median score for NIHSS aphasia (0±1 vs 0±1, p = 0.46). There were no rt-PA rate differences between those that did not and did require IS (17% vs 11%, p = 0.22). In patients with final diagnosis acute ischemic stroke, patients excluded from rt-PA solely due to being out of the window were more likely to have required IS (59% vs 35%, p = 0.003). Time metrics of rt-PA administration were not different in IS patients.
conclusionsThere was no significant difference in frequency or time metrics of rt-PA administration in patients requiring interpreter services during an acute stroke code. AIS patients requiring an interpreter were more likely to be excluded from rt-PA on the basis of time.
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.