SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Intravenous thrombolysis versus antiplatelet standard care for patients with mild acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) versus standard antiplatelet therapy in patients with minor acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, up to 27 June 2025. Inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials comparing IVT with standard antiplatelet care in patients with mild acute ischemic stroke. Exclusions included non-randomized studies, observational studies, non-interventional trials, meeting abstracts, duplicates, studies with overlapping data, and non-English language studies. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Fixed-effects or random-effects model meta-analysis were used to analyze the pooled data. Main outcomes and measures: Rates of functional independence (modified Rankin Scale score ≤ 1 or ≤ 2), 90-day mortality, sICH. Results: Four randomized clinical trials, involving 3,405 initially enrolled patients, were included in the analysis. A lower rate of functional independence was observed in the IVT group (mRS ≤ 1, relative risk [RR], 0.97 [95% CI, 0.94-1.00]; mRS ≤ 2, RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.95-0.99]). Higher 90-day mortality rates (RR, 2.42 [95% CI, 1.39-4.20]) and sICH rates (RR, 4.90 [95% CI, 1.67-14.40]) were observed in the IVT group. All outcomes reported in this analysis had low heterogeneity. Conclusion and relevance: Our findings suggest that intravenous thrombolysis for mild acute ischemic stroke yields no benefit and may pose additional risks compared to antiplatelets standard care. More large clinical randomized controlled trials are still needed in the future to validate our results. Systematic review registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42025643646].
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.