ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Streamlining Acute Stroke Processes and Data Collection: A Narrative Review.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Performance of GFAP and UCH-L1 for Early Acute Stroke Diagnosis in the Emergency Department.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: Acute ischemic stroke treatment has been thoroughly studied to identify strategies to reduce treatment times. However, many centers still struggle to achieve fast treatment times. Additionally, studies primarily focus on larger, more advanced centers; yet, smaller centers often face longer treatment times. (2) Objectives: The aim of this study is to analyze the existing literature reviewing stroke treatment processes in primary and comprehensive stroke centers that investigated or reduced treatment times. The articles identified were categorized based on the focus areas and approaches used. (3) Results: Three main categories of improvements were identified in the literature: (1) standardization of processes, (2) resource management, and (3) data collection. Both primary and comprehensive stroke centers were able to reduce treatment times through standardization of the processes. However, challenges such as variations in hospital resources and difficulties incorporating data collection software into workflow were highlighted. Additionally, many strategies to optimize resources and data collection that can benefit primary stroke centers were only conducted in comprehensive stroke centers. (4) Conclusions: Many existing strategies to improve stroke treatment times, such as pre-notification and mass stroke team alerts, have been implemented in both primary and comprehensive stroke centers. However, tools such as simulation training are understudied in primary stroke centers and should be analyzed. Additionally, while data collection and feedback are recognized as crucial for process improvement, challenges persist in integrating consistent data collection methods into clinical workflow. Further development of easy-to-use software tailored to clinician needs can help improve stroke center capabilities to provide feedback and improve treatment processes.
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.