ArticleStroke (Hoboken, N.J.)2026
Shifts in Clinical Practice-Changing Acute Ischemic Stroke Research Over the Past Decade.
Article in Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.), 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe past decade has witnessed rapid growth of clinical trial programs in Europe and Asia, with randomized clinical trials (RCTs) publications from these regions outpacing those of the United States. However, limited data exist quantifying their relative influence on practice-defining results. Here, we evaluate these shifts by analyzing the geographic origin, funding source, and clinical impact of practice-changing RCTs.
methodsFrom the 2018 and 2026 American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Acute Ischemic Stroke guidelines, we identified RCTs supporting new recommendations and extracted geographic origin (China/Europe/United States/Other), funding source (government/academic/nonprofit versus industry (private/mixed); National Institutes of Health versus non-National Institutes of Health), and research topic (endovascular therapy, thrombolysis, imaging, poststroke care, and prehospital and systems of care). Analyses used unweighted, reference-density-weighted, and clinical-impact-weighted strategies. Temporal trends were assessed using the χ
resultsWe identified 21 new recommendations (47 RCTs) in 2018 and 45 (89 RCTs) in 2026. In 2018, Europe led (51.1%), followed by the United States (31.9%), while China and other regions contributed minimally. By 2026, Europe remained first (36%), China rose to second (29.2%), and the United States declined to the smallest share (14.6%), across all weighted analyses (
conclusionsIn this analysis, we identify a shift in practice-guiding research away from United States-based clinical trials and increasingly towards Europe and China. United States-based RCTs fell from the second most cited to the least cited sources of recommendations. National Institutes of Health-funded RCTs fell from nearly one-quarter of guideline-cited RCTs in 2018 to <5% in 2026, highlighting increasing reliance on non-US studies to inform US clinical care.
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.