ReviewFrontiers in neurology
Endovascular treatment of low NIHSS score(<6) combined with large vessel occlusion: a meta-analysis.
Review 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: At present, there is still debate about the treatment strategies for acute ischemic stroke patients with low National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores (<6 points) and large vessel occlusion (LVO). Our objective is to assess whether endovascular treatment (EVT) could be beneficial in acute ischemic stroke patients with low NHISS scores and LVO. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases to obtain articles related to EVT for patients with low NHISS score with LVO until 1 January 2024. The primary outcome was a good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 0-2). Effect sizes were computed as risk ratio (RR) with random-effects or fixed-effects models. The quality of articles was evaluated through the Cochrane risk assessment tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: A total of 2,275 articles were obtained through the search, and articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded after review of the title, abstract, and full text. Finally, 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 22 cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. In the EVT group, 77.8% of patients achieved a good functional outcome, while 77.1% of patients achieved functional independence in the best medical treatment (BMT) group. EVT was not associated with excellent functional outcome (mRS 0-1; risk ratio 1.04 [95% CI, 0.97-1.11]) or with a good functional outcome (mRS 0-2; risk ratio 1.00 [95% CI, 0.95-1.04]). Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was more common in patients receiving EVT (risk ratio 2.82 [95% CI, 2.18-3.65]). There was no correlation between EVT and 3-month mortality (risk ratio 1.15 [95% CI, 0.93-1.43]). Conclusion: This meta-analysis shows that, in patients with low NIHSS score combined with LVO, EVT did not demonstrate clear improvement in neurologic outcomes but was associated with an increased incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) compared to BMT.
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.