ReviewFrontiers in neurology2026
CT perfusion-guided thrombolysis in the extended window: from trial eligibility to individualized patient selection.
Review 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have expanded the role of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) into the extended time window (beyond 4.5 h) using CT perfusion (CTP)-based patient selection. Following the inclusion of extended-window thrombolysis into the most recent edition of the American Heart Association Acute Ischemic Stroke Guidelines in 2026, these recently completed studies, EXTEND, HOPE, TRACE III, and OPTION, collectively must now inform the rapid clinical implementation of this treatment as we enter an age of precision medicine in the management of acute stroke. This mini-review seeks to address three core implementation challenges for patient selection when considering extended-window thrombolysis: (1) efforts to establish clinical pathways for patient selection should consider the phenotype of patients enrolled in extended-window thrombolysis RCTs in addition to enrollment criteria, (2) assessments of the safety of extended-window thrombolysis based on the best available evidence are reassuring, and (3) promising results from extended-window thrombolysis trials for distal and medium vessel occlusion (DMeVO) stroke patients, in concert with recent neutral endovascular therapy (EVT) trials for treating DMeVO stroke, have carved out a distinct role for IVT in this patient population. Herein, we aim to leverage the best available evidence to address these critical questions that vascular neurologists face as we work toward the clinical implementation of this trial evidence.
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.