ReviewInternational journal of emergency medicine2025
Effectiveness of mobile stroke units in reducing time to thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke: a scoping review.
Review in International journal of emergency medicine, 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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTimely thrombolysis within the golden hour (≤ 60 min from onset) is critical for minimizing disability in acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Mobile stroke units (MSUs) enable prehospital thrombolysis, with effectiveness varying by urban versus rural settings, the presence of an onboard neurologist, and telemedicine models. This study maps evidence on MSU effectiveness in reducing time to thrombolysis in AIS compared to standard emergency medical services (EMS), examines factors modulating effectiveness (e.g., geographic setting, operational protocols), and identifies research gaps.
methodsThis scoping review followed the Arksey and O’Malley framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched from January 2008 to March 2025 for peer-reviewed studies reporting thrombolysis timing in AIS with MSUs. Included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, and meta-analyses (using both fixed-effects and random-effects models) were synthesized narratively, with data on time reductions, treatment rates, outcomes, and limitations extracted by two blinded reviewers (NA and EK) and tabulated.
resultsThirteen studies (five RCTs, six observational studies, and two meta-analyses) involving 39,800 patients across urban and mixed settings were included. MSUs reduced the median onset-to-needle time by 20–41 min, increasing golden-hour rates from less than 5% (EMS) to 21–33%. Urban settings reduced time by 25–41 min and onboard neurologists by up to 41 min, compared to 20–40 min in rural areas and 30–37 min with telemedicine. Thrombolysis rates increased by 10–20% with MSUs compared to EMS, with earlier treatment associated with improved 90-day mRS outcomes of 0–1. Gaps include limited rural data, sparse real-world evidence of cost-effectiveness, and inconsistent reporting of outcomes.
conclusionMSUs enhance access to thrombolysis in AIS, resulting in substantial time savings and potential benefits to outcomes, particularly in urban settings. Further research is needed on rural applicability, cost-effectiveness, and standardized outcomes to optimize global MSU implementation.
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.