SynthesisBrain and behavior2025
To Bridge or Not to Bridge? A Meta-Analysis of Intravenous Thrombolysis Before Thrombectomy in Large Ischemic Core Strokes.
Synthesis in Brain and behavior, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- To Bridge or Not to Bridge? A Meta-Analysis of Intravenous Thrombolysis Before Thrombectomy in Large Ischemic Core Strokes.Brain and behavior · 2025Pooled it
- MiR-124 alleviates cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury by targeting SLC1A5 to inhibit neuronal ferroptosis.Iranian journal of basic medical sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is the standard treatment for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) caused by large vessel occlusion (LVO). However, the role of preceding intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) in patients with sizable ischemic core infarcts remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of bridging therapy (IVT followed by EVT) versus EVT alone in this specific high-risk subgroup.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify studies comparing bridging therapy (IVT + EVT) with EVT alone in patients with large ischemic cores. Primary efficacy outcomes included favorable functional status, defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 0-1 and 0-2 at follow-up. Primary safety outcomes were rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) and any intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Secondary outcomes assessed successful reperfusion and mortality. Data were pooled using random-effects models and reported as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsSeven cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. No significant differences were observed between the two treatment strategies in achieving mRS 0-1 (RR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.52-1.19; p = 0.25) or mRS 0-2 (RR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.46-1.08; p = 0.11). Similarly, rates of sICH (RR = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.67-1.28; p = 0.64), any ICH (RR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.79-1.04; p = 0.15), successful recanalization (RR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.83-1.03; p = 0.14), and mortality (RR = 1.08; 95% CI: 0.96-1.21; p = 0.20) were comparable between groups.
conclusionIn patients with large ischemic core infarcts, administering IVT prior to EVT does not confer significant clinical or procedural advantages over EVT alone. These findings underscore the need for further randomized controlled trials to inform optimal treatment approaches for this challenging patient population.
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.