ArticleBMC emergency medicine2026
Impact of emergency medical services on the prognosis in acute ischemic stroke patients receiving reperfusion therapy or usual treatment: a prospective cohort study.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe impact of Emergency Medical Service (EMS) on the prognosis of patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) remains controversial.
methodsThis prospective cohort study enrolled AIS patients admitted to the emergency department of the Central Hospital of Dalian University of Technology between August 1, 2024, and July 31, 2025. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) adjusted for baseline characteristics, and modified Poisson regression determined the association between EMS transport and the primary outcome, defined as the modified Rankin Scale score of 0-1 at the 3-month follow-up. Post-hoc analyses compared differences in key clinical indicators between groups. Subgroup analyses for primary outcome explored variations among populations with distinct characteristics.
resultsAmong the 773 patients included, 236 were in the EMS-transported group and 537 in the self-transported group. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the possibility of good functional recovery [weighted risk ratio (RR) = 1.37, 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 0.98-1.93]. Post hoc analysis indicated shorter onset-to-door time (ODT) but longer door-to-needle time (DNT) in the EMS-transported group. Subgroup analysis revealed the lower possibility of good functional recovery in patients with a history of coronary heart disease (weighted RR = 4.74, 95% CI = 1.83-12.32; P for interaction = 0.007) and non-smokers (weighted RR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.11-2.40; P for interaction = 0.039) via EMS transport.
conclusionsBased on IPW, EMS-transported group showed shorter ODT and longer DNT, with no significant functional improvement. Targeted pre-hospital education and risk-stratified response mechanism within hospitals may be warranted.
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.