ArticleInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2025
Influence of recent randomized MeVO trials on current practice patterns and future role of MeVO thrombectomy.
Article in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- MeVO: To Treat or Not To Treat? Review of the Latest Evidence.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2026Review
- Navigating the Complexity and Heterogeneity of Thrombectomy Decision-Making for Medium-Vessel Occlusion Stroke: Where Do We Go From Here?Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
IntroductionNumerous non-randomized studies suggest the benefit of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for medium vessel occlusion (MeVO) stroke, while recent randomized trials showed no benefit. In clinical practice, MeVO management remains heterogeneous. We gauged the current status quo of endovascular MeVO management and physicians' perspectives on future MeVO-EVT trials.MethodsInternational, cross-sectional survey study inquiring about practice patterns before and after publication of the MeVO trials, opinions on the design of second-generation MeVO trials, willingness to enroll in such trials, and personal opinions regarding optimal MeVO treatment strategies. Participants' anonymized responses were summarized using descriptive statistics.ResultsFour hundred fifty-six physicians responded to the survey (308 China, 55 North America, 48 Europe, and 45 other countries). 86/454 (18.9%) respondents reported treating more MeVOs with EVT since the recent MeVO-EVT trials, and 134/454 (29.5%) reported treating fewer. Four-hundred-sixteen of 454 (91.6%) reported that their willingness to enroll patients in a second-generation MeVO-EVT trial increased (282/454 [62.1%]) or remained the same (134/454 [29.5%]) compared to before the recent trial publications. Of 122/454 (26.9%) respondents who participated in a MeVO-EVT trial, 79/121 (65.3%) stated that enrolment bias occurred at their sites. Three hundred twelve of 454 (68.7%) respondents (271/378 [71.7%] interventionalists, 41/76 [53.9%] non-interventionalists,
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.