SynthesisBMC medicine2026
Intravenous thrombolysis versus standard medical therapy in minor stroke patients with large vessel severe stenosis or occlusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients with mild stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] ≤ 5) and severe intracranial stenosis or occlusion represent a high-risk subgroup for early neurological deterioration (END) and are strong predictors of poor 3-month functional outcomes. The effectiveness of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) in patients with minor stroke and large vessel severe stenosis or occlusion (LVSSO) remains uncertain. This study aims to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of IVT versus standard medical therapy (SMT) through a systematic review and meta-analysis of both randomized and observational studies.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted to identify studies evaluating IVT in minor stroke with LVSSO from database inception through March 13, 2025. The primary outcome was defined as an excellent functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 0-1) at 90 days. Pooled analyses were performed using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the overall population and prespecified subgroups. The study protocol was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO international registry (CRD42025637459).
resultsA total of five studies were included, comprising 1090 patients with mild ischemic stroke and LVSSO treated with IVT and 3501 patients treated with SMT. Compared with SMT, IVT significantly improved the 90-day excellent functional outcome (mRS 0-1) (OR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.16-2.15]). In the large vessel occlusion subgroup, IVT was also significantly associated with an excellent 90-day functional outcome (OR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.03-2.23]). No significant differences were observed between groups in 90-day favorable functional outcome (mRS 0-2), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), 90-day mortality, or 90-day stroke recurrence.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that IVT may be associated with improved 90-day excellent functional outcomes in patients with mild acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and LVSSO, without increasing the risk of sICH.
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.