ReviewCurrent neurology and neuroscience reports2026
MeVO: To Treat or Not To Treat? Review of the Latest Evidence.
Review in Current neurology and neuroscience reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewEndovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is standard care for large vessel occlusion, but its role in medium vessel occlusion (MeVO) is contested. We appraise randomized and real-world evidence and ask whether, and in whom, MeVO should be treated. RECENT
findingsDISTAL, ESCAPE-MeVO and DISCOUNT found no functional benefit from adding EVT to medical treatment, with more hemorrhage and serious adverse events; DISTAL's 12-month results were also neutral. ORIENTAL-MeVO, restricted to deficits of NIHSS ≥ 6 within 24 h, reported greater functional independence with EVT (58.6% versus 46.6%). The MEMENTO registry (164 patients, 15 Middle East and North Africa centres) reproduced trial-level outcomes - 69% recanalization, 54% independence, 3% symptomatic hemorrhage - while modelled cost-effectiveness ratios of $26,875-71,333/QALY exceeded regional thresholds. DISTALS achieved high reperfusion without symptomatic hemorrhage using a MeVO-dedicated stentretriever. Routine MeVO thrombectomy is unjustified. Benefit concentrates in moderate-to-severe deficits, eloquent territory, salvageable tissue and technically accessible primary occlusions.
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.