Trial reportJournal of the American Heart Association2025
Metabolic Syndrome and Efficacy of Remote Ischemic Postconditioning in Acute Moderate Ischemic Stroke: A Post Hoc Analysis of the RICAMIS Trial.
Trial report in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of diabetes on the efficacy and safety ofJournal of ginseng research · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMetabolic syndrome (METS) is associated with poor outcomes after acute ischemic stroke. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between METS and efficacy of remote ischemic postconditioning (RIPostC) in acute moderate ischemic stroke using the database of the RICAMIS (Remote Ischemic Conditioning for Acute Moderate Ischemic Stroke) trial. METHODS AND
resultsIn the RICAMIS trial, eligible participants were patients with acute moderate ischemic stroke within 48 hours of onset who did not receive reperfusion treatment. A total of 1482 patients were enrolled in this secondary analysis, including the METS (602) and non-METS (880) group according to the METS definitions of the Chinese Diabetes Society, which was further subdivided into RIPostC and control subgroups. The primary outcome was excellent functional outcome, defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 1 at 90 days. The differences in clinical outcomes between the RIPostC subgroup and control subgroup were compared in patients with METS or non-METS, respectively, and the interaction effects of RIPostC treatment assignment with METS status were evaluated. The baseline characteristics between RIPostC and control subgroups across patients with METS and non-METS were well balanced, except the difference in Trial of Org 10 172 in Acute Stroke Treatment stroke mechanism in the METS group. Compared with control, RIPostC was associated with high probability of excellent functional outcome in patients with METS (68.8% versus 56.1%; odds ratio [OR], 1.751 [95% CI, 1.248-2.456];
conclusionsThe secondary analysis suggests for the first time that RIPostC may provide greater benefit in patients with acute ischemic stroke with METS versus non-METS.
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.