ArticleJAMA network open2026
Timeliness of Emergency Care for Intracerebral Hemorrhage Compared With Acute Ischemic Stroke.
Article in JAMA network 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Clinical data comparing time to presentation and stroke quality metrics for intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and acute ischemic stroke (AIS) are limited. Understanding these differences is essential to provide timely care to all stroke subtypes. Objective: To compare prehospital and emergency department (ED) process quality metrics between patients with ICH and AIS. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort study included patients with AIS and ICH admitted to Get With The Guidelines (GWTG)-Stroke participating hospitals from January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2024, who arrived by emergency medical services (EMS). Data were analyzed from 195 hospitals across the US. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prehospital-based and ED-based process metrics (eg, EMS prenotification, door to ED physician assessment time, door to initial brain imaging order) were assessed. Logistic and linear regression models were sequentially adjusted for patient demographics, medical history and presenting factors, and hospital characteristics. Temporal trends of prehospital care metrics were examined. Results: A total of 195 659 patients (median [IQR] age, 74.0 [63.0-83.0] years; 97 978 [50.1%] female; 31 464 with ICH and 164 195 with AIS) from 195 hospitals were included. The median (IQR) National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was 14 (6-23) for ICH vs 6 (2-13) for AIS (absolute standardized difference, 0.694). ICH (vs AIS) was associated with higher odds of door-to-ED physician assessment of 10 or fewer minutes after adjusting for patient demographics (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.14). This association reversed after adding adjustment for medical history and presenting factors (including NIHSS) and hospital characteristics (aOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99). This pattern was observed for door to initial brain imaging order of 20 or fewer minutes (demographic-adjusted: aOR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.16; fully adjusted with medical history and hospital characteristics: aOR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.97). Median last known well to arrival time increased by 32.5% for AIS (151 to 200 minutes; P < .001) and 34.3% for ICH (108 to 145 minutes; P < .001), while rates of EMS prenotification largely remained stable for both ICH and AIS. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with acute stroke, patients with ICH arrived at the ED faster but were less likely to achieve care targets. In the context of emerging hyperacute ICH therapies and bundled care models, addressing these differences is essential to optimizing acute stroke outcomes.
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.