ArticleBrain and behavior2026
Bridging Therapy Versus Intravenous Thrombolysis Alone in Patients With Medium Vessel Occlusion Stroke: A Single-Center Cohort Study.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the outcomes of bridging therapy versus intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) alone in patients with medium vessel occlusion (MeVO).
methodsConsecutive MeVO patients between January 2019 and December 2024 were retrospectively included and classified into IVT alone or bridging therapy groups. The primary outcome was a favorable outcome, defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-1 at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included functional independence (mRS 0-2), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). Inverse probability weighting (IPW) and IPW-adjusted logistic regression were used to balance baseline covariates and assess treatment associations. Per-protocol and as-treated sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the primary findings.
resultsA total of 248 patients with MeVO treated with IVT were included, of whom 86 received bridging therapy. After IPW adjustment, there was no significant difference in the rate of favorable outcome between the bridging therapy and IVT alone groups (59.3% vs. 62.2%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.99). Similarly, bridging therapy was not associated with improved functional independence (73.5% vs. 76.3%; aOR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.66-2.12) or increased risk of sICH (8.0% vs. 5.9%; aOR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.50-3.75). Both per-protocol and as-treated sensitivity analyses yielded similar results.
conclusionsBridging therapy did not improve overall outcomes compared with IVT alone in MeVO patients.
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.