SynthesisJournal of the American Heart Association2026
Methods for Analyzing the Modified Rankin Scale in Stroke Thrombolysis Trials: A Systematic Review and Methodological Framework.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Heart Association, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSignificant heterogeneity in modified Rankin Scale (mRS; a 7-point ordinal scale from 0 to 6) analytical methodologies compromises interpretation and comparability of results in intravenous thrombolysis trials. This study comprehensively reevaluates contemporary mRS analysis methodologies in these trials, aiming to clarify findings and provide insights for future trial design.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted from inception through June 2025 for randomized controlled trials investigating intravenous thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke using the 90-day mRS as the primary outcome. Two independent reviewers conducted study screening and risk-of-bias assessment and extracted patient characteristics, methodological variables, and treatment parameters. The study followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments reporting guideline and Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Roundtable XI recommendations.
resultsA total of 38 randomized controlled trials (n=30 470) were included in this review, of which 5 were at moderate risk. A 90-day mRS score of 0 to 1 was the most frequently selected primary outcome (57.9%). Trials enrolling mild to moderate, younger, or male-dominant participants principally used an mRS score of 0 to 1 as the primary outcome, while those focusing on moderate to severe, older, or female-dominant patients predominantly used ordinal shift analysis.
conclusionsPrimary outcome approaches differed widely across intravenous thrombolysis trials. Although a 90-day mRS score of 0 to 1 remains the most commonly used primary outcome, it is insufficient to capture the full spectrum across diverse thrombolysis populations. A 3-dimensional methodological framework is proposed that integrates severity- and population-stratified outcome strategies with rigorous methodological considerations to advance approaches for analyzing mRS outcomes in stroke thrombolysis trials.
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.