ArticleBrain sciences2024
The Utilization of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Stroke Guidelines.
Article in Brain sciences, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStroke guideline statements are important references for clinicians due to the rapidly evolving nature of treatments. Guideline statements should be informed by up-to-date systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) because they provide the highest level of evidence. To investigate the utilization of SRs/MAs in stroke management guidelines, we conducted a literature review of guidelines and extracted relevant information regarding SRs/MAs.
methodsA literature review was conducted in PubMed with supplementation using the Trip medical database with the term "stroke" as the target population, followed by using the filter "guidelines". We extracted the number of included SRs/MAs, the years of publication, the country of origin, and other characteristics of interest. Descriptive statistics were generated using the R software version 4.2.1.
resultsWe included 27 guideline statements. The median number of overall SRs or MAs within the guidelines was 4.0 (interquartile range [IQR] = 2-9). For MAs only, the median number included in the guidelines was 3.0 (IQR = 2.0-5.5). Canadian guidelines had the oldest citations, with a median gap of 12.0 (IQR = 5.2-18.0) years for the oldest citation, followed by European (median = 12; IQR = 9.5-13.5) and US (median = 10.0; IQR = 5.2-16) guidelines.
conclusionsStroke guideline writing groups and issuing bodies should devote greater effort to the inclusion of up-to-date SRs/MAs in their guideline statements so that clinicians can reference recent data with the highest level of evidence.
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.