Trial reportEuropean journal of neurology2024
Differential efficacy of remote ischaemic conditioning in anterior versus posterior circulation stroke: A prespecified secondary analysis of the RICAMIS trial.
Trial report in European journal of neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differential efficacy of remote ischaemic conditioning in anterior versus posterior circulation stroke: A prespecified secondary analysis of the RICAMIS trial.European journal of neurology · 2024Trial
- The role of remote ischemic conditioning in ischemic stroke: neuroprotective mechanisms and future directions.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Research progress on remote ischemic conditioning for improving prognosis of patients with acute ischemic stroke.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2025Review
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
background and purposeThe benefit of remote ischaemic conditioning (RIC) in acute moderate ischaemic stroke has been demonstrated by the Remote Ischaemic Conditioning for Acute Moderate Ischaemic Stroke (RICAMIS) study. This prespecified exploratory analysis aimed to determine whether there was a difference of RIC efficacy in anterior versus posterior circulation stroke based on RICAMIS data.
methodsIn this analysis, eligible patients presenting within 48 h of stroke onset were divided into two groups: anterior circulation stroke (ACS) and posterior circulation stroke (PCS) groups. The primary endpoint was an excellent functional outcome, defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 0-1 at 90 days.
resultsIn all, 1013 patients were included in the final analysis, including 642 with ACS and 371 with PCS. Compared with the control group, RIC was significantly associated with an increased proportion of mRS scores 0-1 within 90 days in the PCS group (unadjusted odds ratio 1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.0-2.4, p = 0.04; adjusted odds ratio 2.0, 95% confidence interval 1.2-3.3, p = 0.005), but not in the ACS group (p = 0.29). Similar results were found regarding secondary outcomes including mRS score 0-2 at 90 days, mRS distribution at 90 days and change in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at day 12 from baseline. However, there was no significant interaction effect between stroke location and intervention on the primary outcome (p
conclusionAmongst patients with acute PCS who are not candidates for reperfusion treatment, RIC may be associated with a higher probability of improved functional outcomes. These findings need to be validated in prospective trials.
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.