SynthesisBMC emergency medicine2025
Impact of emergency fast track on treatment time and outcomes in acute stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding door-to-needle delays in acute ischemic stroke: a workflow-based analysis of emergency department care processes.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Authorized surrogate presence and its association with early in-hospital delays and outcomes in acute ischemic stroke.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Assessing performance, calibration, and explainability of machine learning versus traditional models for early outcome prediction after spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Effect of a fast-track nursing pathway for emergency percutaneous coronary intervention on clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Critical role of accompanying authorized surrogates among the multifactorial determinants of in-hospital delays in patients with acute stroke.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
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
objectiveTo systematically evaluate the effectiveness of emergency fast track in improving the efficiency of acute stroke management and enhancing clinical outcomes, thereby providing evidence-based support for optimizing emergency care workflows.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP Database, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to identify studies on the application of emergency fast track in acute stroke. Data synthesis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 software. The primary measures included pre-hospital waiting time, time from hospital admission to diagnosis, time from diagnosis to treatment, length of stay in the emergency fast track, rescue success rate, and patient satisfaction rate. Sensitivity analysis was used to assess the robustness of the results, and publication bias was evaluated using Begg's and Egger's tests.
resultsA total of 30 studies were included. The meta-analysis indicated that emergency fast track significantly reduced pre-hospital waiting time (MD = - 4.65, 95% CI: - 5.76 to - 3.53), time from hospital admission to diagnosis (MD = - 8.13, 95% CI: - 9.32 to - 6.93), time from diagnosis to treatment (MD = - 10.95, 95% CI: - 12.32 to - 9.59), and emergency fast track duration (MD = - 7.47, 95% CI: - 9.30 to - 5.64), while significantly increasing the rescue success rate (OR = 5.71, 95% CI: 4.48 to 7.27). Most outcomes showed no significant publication bias, and sensitivity analyses confirmed the stability of the results.
conclusionThe emergency fast-track protocol significantly reduces critical timeframes in acute/critical care pathways, including: pre-hospital delay, door-to-imaging time, imaging-to-treatment interval, and fast-track dwell time. Concurrently, it enhances the rescue success rate (proportion of successfully stabilized patients). These demonstrated clinical benefits support its widespread implementation in stroke emergency systems. Further validation through multicenter high-quality trials is recommended to establish efficacy generalizability. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.