Trial reportEuropean stroke journal2026
Hierarchical composite outcomes in acute ischaemic stroke with large infarct: a win ratio analysis of the TENSION trial.
Trial report in European stroke journal, 2026. 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
54 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTraditional endpoints in acute ischaemic stroke trials, most commonly the mRS, incompletely capture the full spectrum of patient outcomes. The win ratio (WR) is a hierarchically structured composite outcome measure that prioritises endpoints according to clinical importance. In this study, we applied win statistics to investigate which components drive the overall treatment effect. PATIENTS AND
methodsOf 253 patients in the TENSION (Efficacy and safety of ThrombEctomy iN Stroke with extended leSION and extended time window) trial, 125 were randomised to EVT + BMT and 128 to BMT alone. Endpoints were ranked hierarchically: (1) time to death, (2) mRS at 12 months, (3) occurrence of any serious adverse event and (4) EuroQOL 5-dimension scores at 12 months. Outcomes were analysed using win statistics.
resultsThe overall WR was 1.61 (95% CI, 1.19-2.18; P = .002), indicating a relative frequency of wins for EVT + BMT of approximately 60% among untied pairwise comparisons. The win difference was 22.8% (95% CI, 8.3%-36.3%; P = .002), of which 15.7% were attributable to survival. Win ratios were consistent across prespecified subgroups, including both sexes, age ≤ 80 years, baseline mRS 0-1, conscious patients, ASPECTS 5 and M1 occlusions. DISCUSSION: The WR provides an informative complement to conventional mRS-based analyses in acute ischaemic stroke trials. Our hierarchical composite outcome analysis demonstrated how ordering of hierarchical components affects the resulting estimates, with the predominant treatment effect in TENSION being driven by improved survival.
conclusionThese findings support the complementary use of hierarchical composite outcomes in future neurointerventional trials.
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.