Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41584468›Full record

ReviewStroke (Hoboken, N.J.)2021

Standardized Reporting of Workflow Metrics in Acute Ischemic Stroke Treatment: Why and How?

Mayank Goyal, Jeffrey L Saver, Aravind Ganesh, Rosalie V McDonough, Yvo B W E M Roos, Grégoire Boulouis, Martin Kurz, Marios-Nikos Psychogios, Staffan Holmin, Charles B L M Majoie and 10 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Impact of multidisciplinary simulation training on endovascular thrombectomy: Workflow, patient outcomes and anaesthetic management.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Mayank GoyalDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences University of Calgary Calgary Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9060-2109
Jeffrey L SaverDepartment of Neurology and Comprehensive Stroke Center, David Geffen School of Medicine University of California Los Angeles CA.
Aravind GaneshDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences University of Calgary Calgary Canada.
Rosalie V McDonoughDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences University of Calgary Calgary Canada.
Yvo B W E M RoosDepartment of Neurology, Amsterdam University Medical Center University of Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands.
Grégoire BoulouisDepartment of Neuroradiology Tours University Hospital Tours France.
Martin KurzDepartment of Neurology Stavanger University Hospital Stavanger Norway.
Marios-Nikos PsychogiosClinic of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Basel University of Basel Basel Switzerland.
Staffan HolminDepartments of Neuroradiology and Neurology Karolinska University Hospital Stockholm Sweden.
Charles B L M MajoieDepartment of Neuroradiology, Amsterdam UMC University of Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands.
Romain BourcierDepartment of Neuroradiology Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nantes Nantes France.
Ronil ChandraDepartment of Neuroradiology Monash University Victoria Australia.
Shinichi YoshimuraDepartment of Neurosurgery Hyogo College of Medicine Nishinomiya Hyogo Japan.
Dileep YavagalDepartment of Neurology University of Miami Health System Miami FL.
Benjamin GoryDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology University Hospital of Nancy Nancy France.
Christian TaschnerDepartment of Neuroradiology University Hospital Freiburg Freiburg Germany.
Brian BuckDepartment of Neuroradiology University of Alberta Edmonton Canada.
Ashutosh JadhavDepartment of Neurology University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Pittsburgh PA.
Michael D HillDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences University of Calgary Calgary Canada.
Johanna Maria OspelDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences University of Calgary Calgary Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The benefit of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) treatment is highly time dependent. Although studies on workflow improvement in AIS are increasingly gaining attention, there is a lack of consensus and consistency regarding the definition, measurement, and reporting of AIS workflow times. We discuss the challenges related to defining and measuring workflow times in AIS and propose a basic set of time intervals that should be reported in AIS workflow studies. We particularly focus on patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy. Importantly, endovascular treatment workflow times should always be reported in conjunction with reperfusion quality because one is not informative without the other. We further suggest standardized reporting of workflow times that includes the 90th percentile in addition to medians and interquartile ranges, means, and SDs. The proposed methodology serves as a framework for AIS studies and aids further discussion on workflow-related AIS research.

Indexed as

ischemic strokeoutcomesthrombectomy

Identifiers

PMID41584468
PMCPMC12512355

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.