ArticleBMJ open2023
Endovascular thrombectomy with or without thrombolysis bridging in patients with acute ischaemic stroke: protocol for a systematic review, meta-analysis of randomised trials and cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endovascular Thrombectomy With or Without Thrombolysis for Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.The Neurohospitalist · 2024Article
- Costs of Neurological Disorders.Neuroepidemiology · 2024Article
- Endovascular Thrombectomy with or without Bridging Thrombolysis in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Neuroepidemiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCurrent published guidelines and meta-analyses comparing endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) alone versus EVT with bridging intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) suggest that EVT alone is non-inferior to EVT with bridging thrombolysis in achieving favourable functional outcome. Because of this controversy, we aimed to systematically update the evidence and meta-analyse data from randomised trials comparing EVT alone versus EVT with bridging thrombolysis, and performed an economic evaluation comparing both strategies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials comparing EVT with or without bridging thrombolysis in patients presenting with large vessel occlusions. We will identify eligible studies by systematically searching the following databases from inception without any language restrictions: MEDLINE (through Ovid), Embase and the Cochrane Library. The following criteria will be used to assess eligibility for inclusion: (1) adult patients ≥18 years old; (2) randomised patients to EVT alone or to EVT with IVT; and (3) measured outcomes, including functional outcomes, at least 90 days after randomisation. Pairs of reviewers will independently screen the identified articles, extract information and assess the risk of bias of eligible studies. We will use the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool to evaluate risk of bias. We will also use the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in evidence for each outcome. We will then perform an economic evaluation based on the extracted data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review will not require a research ethics approval because no confidential patient data will be used. We will disseminate our findings by publishing the results in a peer-reviewed journal and via presentation at conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022315608.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.