SynthesisPloS one2025
A methodological assessment of randomization integrity in alteplase for acute ischemic stroke individual patient data meta-analyses.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLittle is known about the integrity of randomization for randomized controlled trials (RCT) included in alteplase for stroke meta-analyses. If the RCTs were not properly randomized, the results could not be accepted at face value. The objective was to assess the integrity of randomization in individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses supporting alteplase for acute ischemic stroke.
methodsWe assessed randomization reporting, performed qualitative risk of bias assessments arising from the randomization process, and performed fixed effects meta-analyses of baseline variables for which zero heterogeneity is expected if all included RCTs have unbiased randomization. Fixed-effects meta-analyses of baseline age, weight, and National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score were performed. If heterogeneity was present (I2 > 0%), trials were systematically removed, starting with the RCT with the largest t-statistic until the I2 value was 0%.
resultsThe NINDS rt-PA Stroke Study had a high risk of bias, the ECASS-3 RCT had some concerns, and all other trials were graded as low risk according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB-2) tool. The NINDS rt-PA Stroke Study contributed to heterogeneity in age and weight meta-analyses, and the ECASS-3 RCT contributed to heterogeneity in the NIHSS score meta-analysis. Removal of suspect trials resulted in the expected I2 value of 0%.
conclusionsThe NINDS rt-PA Stroke Study and ECASS-3 trials contributed to heterogeneity in fixed effects meta-analyses of baseline variables while there should have been none. These RCTs are likely a source of selection bias in IPD meta-analyses due to suspect randomization.
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.