ArticleFrontiers in neurology2025
Is helicopter transferal in the "drip-and-ship" approach for endovascular treatment the better choice? A retrospective analysis of transfer times.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 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.
- Helicopter emergency medical services for interfacility transfers: an Italian expert consensus.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: For patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) admitted to primary stroke centers (PSC) without neuro-interventional capabilities, timely transfer to comprehensive stroke centers (CSC) is crucial. In this study, we compared the transport time of ground- and air-based transfer for patients receiving endovascular treatment at our CSC. Methods: In a retrospective cohort study, consecutive ischemic stroke patients with LVO who were transferred ground- or air-based to our CSC between October 2018 and December 2022 were examined. 170 patients with LVO from five PSCs within a radius of 55 to 85 km to the CSC were included. Patients were transported either with an emergency rescue helicopter (ERH), a ground ambulance (GA), GA accompanied by an emergency physician vehicle (EPV), or in a mobile intensive care unit (MICU) and were accordingly divided into air-based (61 patients) and ground-based (109 patients) main transport groups. Results: The analysis revealed a significant difference between air- and ground-based transport groups (75 vs. 82 min, Conclusion: In the present analysis, air-based transport was faster than ground-based transport for the secondary transfer of patients with stroke due to LVO in the observed regional conditions. Both air- and land-based transport appear to be safe. No serious complications occurred during transport, while complications were more frequent in the ground-based transport group.
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.