Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40335883›Full record

SynthesisTranslational stroke research2025

Automated Emergent Large Vessel Occlusion Detection Using Viz.ai Software and Its Impact on Stroke Workflow Metrics and Patient Outcomes in Stroke Centers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Khalid Sarhan, Ahmed Y Azzam, Mostafa Hossam El Din Moawad, Ibrahim Serag, Abdallah Abbas, Ahmed E Sarhan

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Translational stroke research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Artificial Intelligence from Flow Metrics Improvement Toward Clinical Value.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Khalid SarhanFaculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt. kwssarhan@std.mans.edu.eg.
Ahmed Y AzzamFaculty of Medicine, October 6 University, Giza, Egypt.
Mostafa Hossam El Din MoawadAlexandria Main University Hospital, Alexandria, Egypt.
Ibrahim SeragFaculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
Abdallah AbbasFaculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Damietta, Egypt.
Ahmed E SarhanLecturer of Neurology, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The implementation of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly Viz.ai software in stroke care, has emerged as a promising tool to enhance the detection of large vessel occlusion (LVO) and to improve stroke workflow metrics and patient outcomes. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the impact of Viz.ai on stroke workflow efficiency in hospitals and on patients' outcomes. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive search on electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases, to obtain relevant studies until 25 October 2024. Our primary outcomes were door-to-groin puncture (DTG) time, CT scan-to-start of endovascular treatment (EVT) time, CT scan-to-recanalization time, and door-in-door-out time. Secondary outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), any ICH, mortality, mRS score < 2 at 90 days, and length of hospital stay. A total of 12 studies involving 15,595 patients were included in our analysis. The pooled analysis demonstrated that the implementation of the Viz.ai algorithm was associated with lesser CT scan to EVT time (SMD -0.71, 95% CI [-0.98, -0.44], p < 0.001) and DTG time (SMD -0.50, 95% CI [-0.66, -0.35], p < 0.001) as well as CT to recanalization time (SMD -0.55, 95% CI [-0.76, -0.33], p < 0.001). Additionally, patients in the post-AI group had significantly lower door-in door-out time than the pre-AI group (SMD -0.49, 95% CI [-0.71, -0.28], p < 0.001). Despite the workflow metrics improvement, our analysis did not reveal statistically significant differences in patient clinical outcomes (p > 0.05). Our results suggest that the integration of the Viz.ai platform in stroke care holds significant potential for reducing EVT delays in patients with LVO and optimizing stroke flow metrics in comprehensive stroke centers. Further studies are required to validate its efficacy in improving clinical outcomes in patients with LVO.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceSoftwareStrokeWorkflowEndovascular ProceduresHumansTime-to-TreatmentTomography, X-Ray ComputedTreatment OutcomeArtificial intelligenceLarge vessel occlusionMachine learningStroke workflow metrics

Identifiers

PMID40335883
PMCPMC12596299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.