ReviewNeuroepidemiology2025
Stroke Is Not an Accident: An Integrative Review on the Use of the Term Cerebrovascular Accident.
Review in Neuroepidemiology, 2025. 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.
- Stroke Is Not an Accident: An Integrative Review on the Use of the Term Cerebrovascular Accident.Neuroepidemiology · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCerebrovascular accident (CVA) is an outdated term for describing stroke as it implies stroke is an accident. We conducted an integrative review to examine the use of CVA in terms of (1) frequency in major medical journals over time; (2) associated publication characteristics (e.g., number of authors, senior author country, topic); and (3) frequency in medical records.
methodsWe searched Google Scholar for publications in leading neurology and vascular journals (Quartile 1) across two 5-year periods (1998-2002 and 2018-2022) using the terms "cerebrovascular accident" or "CVA." Two reviewers independently reviewed full-text publications and recorded the frequency of CVA use. Rates of use (per 1,000 articles/year) were calculated for each journal and time period. Associations of publication characteristics with CVA use were determined using multivariable logistic regression models. In addition, admission and discharge forms in the Auckland Regional Community Stroke Study (ARCOS V) were audited for frequency of use of the term CVA.
resultsOf the 1,643 publications retrieved, 1,539 were reviewed in full. Of these, CVA was used ≥1 time in 676 publications, and ≥2 times in 276 publications (129 in 1998-2002; 147 in 2018-2022). The terms CVA and stroke both appeared in 57% of publications where CVA was used ≥2 times in 1998-2002, compared to 65% in 2018-2022. Majority of publications were on the topic of stroke (22% in 1998-2002; 20% in 2018-2022). There were no associations between publication characteristics and the use of CVA. The highest rate of CVA use in 2018-2022 was in Circulation, which had increased over time from 1.3 uses per 1,000 publications in 1998-2002 to 1.8 uses per 1,000 publications in 2018-2022. The largest reduction in the use of CVA was in Neuroepidemiology (2.0 uses per 1,000 publications in 1998-2002 to 0 uses in 2018-2022). The term CVA was identified in 0.2% (17/7,808) of stroke admission and discharge forms audited.
conclusionWe found evidence of changes in the use of CVA in the scientific literature over the past two decades. Editors, authors, and clinicians should avoid the use of the term CVA as it perpetuates the use of an ambiguous and inappropriate term.
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.