SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2026
Efficacy and safety of magnetic resonance imaging- vs. computed tomography-guided reperfusion in acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is a leading cause of death and disability. Timely reperfusion improves outcomes, but optimal patient selection depends on neuroimaging; CT is fast and widely available, whereas MRI offers greater precision in identifying salvageable brain tissue. This systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis evaluates the comparative effectiveness of MRI-guided reperfusion (MRI-R) vs. CT-guided reperfusion (CT-R) in adult AIS. Methods: We conducted a PRISMA-compliant SR and searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL and Google Scholar for English or Spanish studies comparing MRI-R vs. CT-R in adult AIS. Randomized trials, cohort, and case-control designs were included. Primary outcome was mortality; secondary outcomes were 90-day functional independence modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0-2) and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH). Data were pooled with a random-effects model; risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. Results: From 11,578 records, 13 studies (27,313 patients) met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of 11 studies (27, 197 patients) showed MRI-R was associated with increased 90-day mRS ≤2 (RR 1.28, 95 % CI 1.06-1.55; Conclusion: MRI-R was associated with improved functional outcomes, reduced mortality and lower sICH rates than CT-guided strategies. However, these findings should not be interpreted as definitive superiority given the high heterogeneity in functional outcomes, baseline patient characteristic differences between imaging groups, and detected publication bias. CT remains essential for rapid hyperacute assessment, while in well-equipped centers, MRI can improve patient selection through detailed tissue characterization, provided this does not delay reperfusion and patients have no contraindications. Further, prospective, randomized studies are needed to confirm these findings. Systemic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251165578, CRD420251165578.
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.