Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42893468›Full record

Trial reportJournal of neurology2026

Magnetic resonance imaging vs computed tomography for baseline imaging evaluation in acute basilar artery occlusion.

Feiyang Gao, Thanh N Nguyen, Anmo Wang, Rui Li, Pengfei Xu, Yiran Chen, Raul G Nogueira, Shaokuan Fang, Wei Hu

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Feiyang Gao *Department of Neurology, Neuroscience Centre, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Jilin, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-9962-4772
Thanh N Nguyen *Department of Radiology, Boston Medical Center, Boston University Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Anmo Wang *Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230027, China.
Rui LiDivision of Life Sciences and Medicine, Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230027, China.
Pengfei XuDivision of Life Sciences and Medicine, Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230027, China.
Yiran ChenDivision of Life Sciences and Medicine, Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230027, China.
Raul G NogueiraDepartment of Neurology, UPMC Stroke Institute, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Shaokuan Fang *Department of Neurology, Neuroscience Centre, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Jilin, China.
Wei Hu *Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230027, China. andinghu@ustc.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4826-4633

Funding

Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities YD9110002014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe optimal imaging modality, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT), for identifying good treatment candidates among patients with acute basilar-artery occlusion (BAO) remains unclear.

methodsThis was a post hoc analysis of the ATTENTION trial. Patients were categorized into MRI or CT groups according to the baseline imaging modality. The primary outcome was mRS 0-3 at 90 days. The secondary outcomes included mRS score shift on an ordinal scale, early neurological deterioration, time from stroke onset to arterial puncture, and time from onset to randomization. The safety outcome was mortality within 90 days. Clinical outcomes and workflow times were compared between the two groups.

resultsAmong 340 patients (CT: n = 277; MRI: n = 63), baseline imaging was not significantly associated with 90-day mRS 0-3 in the overall cohort (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.50-1.95; P = 0.976). It remained highly consistent across both the endovascular treatment and best medical management subgroups. Baseline MRI assessment was not associated with significant workflow delays compared with CT, including time from stroke onset to randomization (mean difference [MD] 5.23 min; P = 0.843) and time to puncture (MD 13.16 min; P = 0.701). Furthermore, the association between imaging modality and outcomes was consistent across different time windows. DISCUSSION: In patients with acute BAO, we did not observe evidence supporting the preferential use of MRI over CT as the primary imaging strategy for patient selection. Conventional imaging appears sufficient as a first-line tool for selecting patients in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingTomography, X-Ray ComputedVertebrobasilar InsufficiencyAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedBasilar-artery occlusionComputed tomographyEndovascular treatmentMagnetic resonance imagingStroke

Identifiers

PMID42893468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.