SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
Efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis versus standard medical management for minor stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The efficacy and safety of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) compared to standard medical management (SMM) remain unclear in patients with minor ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] ≤ 5). This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to synthesize evidence from a direct comparison of these treatments. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to June 30th, 2025. The primary efficacy outcome was an excellent functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score 0-1) at 90 days. The secondary efficacy outcome was functional independence (mRS score 0-2) at 90 days. Key safety outcomes included symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and 90-day all-cause mortality. Data were analyzed using a random-effects model. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251089799). Results: Five RCTs involving 4,361 patients were included. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference between IVT and SMM in efficacy, both for the primary efficacy outcome (90-day mRS 0-1: OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72-1.00) or the secondary efficacy outcome (90-day mRS 0-2: OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.63-1.13). Regarding safety, the risk of sICH was significantly higher in the IVT group (OR 4.70, 95% CI 1.76-12.52), whereas no significant difference was found in 90-day all-cause mortality (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.69-3.79). Conclusion: In patients with minor ischemic stroke, IVT offers no superior benefit in functional outcomes over SMM but significantly increases sICH risk. Therefore, routine use of IVT should be approached with caution. Future research should identify specific subgroups who might benefit. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251089799.
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.