ArticleScientific reports2024
Association of systolic blood pressure variability with remote ischemic conditioning in acute ischemic stroke.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Review
- Prognostic value of beat-to-beat blood pressure variability parameters in patients after mechanical thrombectomy.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Systolic blood pressure variability (SBPV) is associated with outcome in acute ischemic stroke. Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) has been demonstrated to be effective in stroke and may affect blood pressure. Relationship between SBPV and RIC treatment after stroke warrants investigation. A total of 1707 patients from per-protocol analysis set of RICAMIS study were included. The SBPV was calculated based on blood pressure measured at admission, Day 7, and Day 12. (I) To investigate the effect of SBPV on efficacy of RIC in stroke, patients were divided into High and Low categories in each SBPV parameter. Primary outcome was excellent functional outcome at 90 days. Compared with Control, efficacy of RIC in each category and interaction between categories were investigated. (II) To investigate the effect of RIC treatment on SBPV, SBPV parameters were compared between RIC and Control groups. Compared with Control, a higher likelihood of primary outcome in RIC was found in high category (max-min: adjusted risk difference [RD] = 7.2, 95% CI 1.2-13.1, P = 0.02; standard deviation: adjusted RD = 11.5, 95% CI 1.6-21.4, P = 0.02; coefficient of variation: adjusted RD = 11.2, 95% CI 1.4-21.0, P = 0.03). Significant interaction of RIC on outcomes were found between High and Low standard deviations (adjusted P < 0.05). No significant difference in SBPV parameters were found between treatment groups. This is the first report that Chinese patients with acute moderate ischemic stroke and presenting with higher SBPV, who were non-cardioemoblic stroke and not candidates for intravenous thrombolysis or endovascular therapy, would benefit more from RIC with respect to functional outcomes at 90 days, but 2-week RIC treatment has no effect on SBPV during hospital.
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.