ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Shifts in Clinical Practice-Changing Acute Ischemic Stroke Research Over the Last Decade.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The past decade has witnessed rapid growth of clinical-trial programs in Europe and Asia, with randomized clinical trials (RCTs) publications from these regions outpacing those of the U.S. However, limited data exist quantifying their relative influence on practice-defining results. Here, we evaluate these shifts by analyzing geographic origin, funding source, and clinical impact of practice-changing RCTs. Methods: From the 2018 and 2026 American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) Acute Ischemic Stroke (AIS) Guidelines, we identified RCTs supporting new recommendations and extracted geographic origin (China/Europe/USA/Other), funding source (government/academic/non-profit vs. industry (private/mixed); NIH vs. non-NIH), and research topic (endovascular therapy (EVT), thrombolysis, imaging, poststroke care, and prehospital and systems of care). Analyses used unweighted, reference-density-weighted, and clinical-impact-weighted strategies. Temporal trends were assessed using the chi-square/Fisher's exact tests, with Rao-Scott adjusted chi-square tests accounting for weighting. Results: We identified 21 new recommendations (47 RCTs) in 2018 and 45 (89 RCTs) in 2026. In 2018, Europe led (51.1%), followed by the U.S. (31.9%), while China and other regions contributed minimally. By 2026, Europe remained first (36%), China rose to second (29.2%), and the U.S. declined to the smallest share (14.6%), across all weighted analyses (p<0.01). NIH-funded trials declined significantly from 21.3% (unweighted), 27.4% (reference-density-weighted), and 27.3% (clinical-impact-weighted) in 2018 to 4.5%, 4.8%, and 3.4%, respectively in 2026 (p<0.01 across all weighted strategies). Conclusion: In this analysis, we identify a shift away from U.S.-based clinical trials and increasing contributions from China. U.S.-based RCTs fell from the second most cited to the least cited sources of practice-changing recommendations. NIH-funded research fell from nearly one-quarter in 2018 to <5% in 2026, highlighting increasing dependence on non-U.S. studies for U.S.-based care. These findings raise questions about the effectiveness of current AIS research paradigms in the U.S.
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.