ReviewAsian journal of neurosurgery2025
Real-World Recanalization Outcomes of Mechanical Thrombectomy in India: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.
Review in Asian journal of neurosurgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to study the real-world recanalization rates of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in Indian stroke patients. A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Scopus, and Embase was conducted for Indian observational studies on MT published up to September 30, 2024. The studies assessing recanalization using the modified thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (mTICI) met the inclusion criteria for review. Besides, only the studies that defined successful recanalization as mTICI ≥2b were included in the meta-analysis. Data on MT techniques, recanalization rates, number of passes, and first-pass effect were extracted. Risk of bias assessment was done using the MINORS tool. Meta-analysis was performed with a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was measured with
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.