SynthesisEuropean journal of medical research2025
Safety and efficacy of intravenous tenecteplase in patients with acute ischemic stroke in extended time window: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Safety and efficacy of intravenous tenecteplase in patients with acute ischemic stroke in the extended time window: an updated meta-analysis.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is limited evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg in patients with acute ischemic stroke in the extended time window, either with large vessel occlusion or not. Therefore, we aim to assess its safety and efficacy for these patients. METHODOLOGY: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials that compared tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg with the best medical management. Our primary efficacy outcomes included favorable and excellent functional outcomes, measured via the modified Rankin score (mRS), and early neurological improvements. Primary safety outcomes were mortality and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage rates. Subgroup analyses were performed based on mRs, and the inclusion of patients eligible for mechanical thrombectomy in addition to TNK.
resultsOur search found nine randomized controlled trials, of which 8 were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 3068 patients were included. Tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg did not differ from the control group in achieving excellent functional outcomes and favorable functional outcomes (P values: 0.15 and 0.69), while there was significant improvement in early neurological improvement (P value: 0.02). Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was statistically higher in the tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg group (P value 0.008). Subgroup analyses indicated that patients with mRS 0-1 who receive TNK 0.25 mg/kg do better than those with mRS 0-2. Better results for TNK 0.25 mg/kg were observed in studies that excluded patients eligible for mechanical thrombectomy in addition to TNK.
conclusionsTNK 0.25 mg/kg appears to significantly achieve early neurological improvement with no effect in achieving excellent or favorable functional outcomes; however, it showed a significant increase in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. Patients who performed endovascular thrombectomy after administering TNK 0.25 mg/kg had statistically significantly higher rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage; on the other hand, current evidence endorses the use of tenecteplase 0.25 mg/kg in patients with ischemic strokes whose baseline mRs ranges from 0 to 1. Further RCTs are necessary to validate these findings. Prospero registration number: CRD42025636473.
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.