ArticleBMJ open2026
Intravenous thrombolysis versus non-thrombolytic standard care for lacunar ischaemic stroke: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatients with lacunar ischaemic strokes are at risk of substantial long-term disability and cognitive impairment. However, uncertainty remains surrounding the use of intravenous thrombolysis or antithrombotic medications acutely in this subpopulation, as no trials have been dedicated to specifically studying acute lacunar strokes. To address this knowledge gap, we will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing literature examining the comparative effectiveness and safety surrounding the use (or non-use) of thrombolytic agents in lacunar strokes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) will be searched with librarian assistance. Eligible studies will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and post-hoc analyses of RCTs investigating the use of an intravenous thrombolytic agent and report outcomes in adult patients with lacunar ischaemic stroke as a population or subgroup. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients achieving a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-1 at 90 days. Data on participant characteristics, study design, interventions, comparators and outcomes will be extracted. Study quality will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB 2) tool for RCTs and post-hoc analyses; heterogeneity will be assessed using the I PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420261355006 ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethics is not required as no primary data will be collected. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and scientific conference presentations. This review will aid healthcare teams in decision-making on the choice of intravenous thrombolysis and non-thrombolytic standard care in patients with ischaemic lacunar stroke and may guide the development of future treatment trials and guidelines.
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.