ArticleQatar medical journal2025
Exploring the impact of intensive versus standard blood pressure management following post-endovascular therapy in ischemic stroke: A comparative systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Qatar medical journal, 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the impact of intensive versus standard blood pressure control following post-endovascular therapy in ischemic stroke patients. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines by searching PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central databases from inception to December 2023. The outcomes evaluated included symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, functional independence (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 0-2), death or disability (mRS score 3-6), and health-related quality of life (three-level EuroQoL five-dimensional self-report questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L score). We used the standard mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous outcomes in all studies and used a random-effects model for data synthesis irrespective of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I Results: We screened 2,000 articles and included four randomized controlled trials (3,635 patients). Intensive blood pressure control affected the health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-3L score) more than standard blood pressure (SMD = -0.22, 95% CI: -0.34 to -0.11, Conclusion: In summary, our findings indicate that implementing intensive blood pressure control does not lead to an increased risk of adverse outcomes such as intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours, compromised functional independence, disability, or mortality 3 months following endovascular therapy. Despite the observed reduction in health-related quality of life reflected in the EQ-5D-3L score, the overall safety profile of intensive blood pressure control compared to standard management suggests its viability as a potential strategy for improving patient outcomes in the context of endovascular therapy.
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.