MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151475645 · doi:10.1001/jama.2015.13767

Endovascular Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke

2015· review· en· W2151475645 on OpenAlexaff
Jetan H. Badhiwala, Farshad Nassiri, Waleed Alhazzani, Magdy Selim, Forough Farrokhyar, Julian Spears, Abhaya V. Kulkarni, Sheila K. Singh, Abdulrahman Alqahtani, Bram Rochwerg, Mohammad Y. Alshahrani, Naresh K. Murty, Adel Alhazzani, Blake Yarascavitch, Kesava Reddy, Osama O. Zaidat, Saleh A. Almenawer

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineModified Rankin ScaleRandomized controlled trialOdds ratioInternal medicineStroke (engine)Cochrane LibraryMEDLINERevascularizationMyocardial infarctionIschemic strokeIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Endovascular intervention for acute ischemic stroke improves revascularization. But trials examining endovascular therapy yielded variable functional outcomes, and the effect of endovascular intervention among subgroups needs better definition. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between endovascular mechanical thrombectomy and clinical outcomes among patients with acute ischemic stroke. DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library without language restriction through August 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials of endovascular therapy with mechanical thrombectomy vs standard medical care, which includes the use of intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (tPA). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Independent reviewers evaluated the quality of studies and abstracted the data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for all outcomes using random-effects meta-analyses and performed subgroup and sensitivity analyses to examine whether certain imaging, patient, treatment, or study characteristics were associated with improved functional outcome. The strength of the evidence was examined for all outcomes using the GRADE method. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Ordinal improvement across modified Rankin scale (mRS) scores at 90 days, functional independence (mRS score, 0-2), angiographic revascularization at 24 hours, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 90 days, and all-cause mortality at 90 days. RESULTS: Data were included from 8 trials involving 2423 patients (mean [SD] age, 67.4 [14.4] years; 1131 [46.7%] women), including 1313 who underwent endovascular thrombectomy and 1110 who received standard medical care with tPA. In a meta-analysis of these trials, endovascular therapy was associated with a significant proportional treatment benefit across mRS scores (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.14-2.13; P = .005). Functional independence at 90 days (mRS score, 0-2) occurred among 557 of 1293 patients (44.6%; 95% CI, 36.6%-52.8%) in the endovascular therapy group vs 351 of 1094 patients (31.8%; 95% CI, 24.6%-40.0%) in the standard medical care group (risk difference, 12%; 95% CI, 3.8%-20.3%; OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.18-2.49; P = .005). Compared with standard medical care, endovascular thrombectomy was associated with significantly higher rates of angiographic revascularization at 24 hours (75.8% vs 34.1%; OR, 6.49; 95% CI, 4.79-8.79; P < .001) but no significant difference in rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 90 days (70 events [5.7%] vs 53 events [5.1%]; OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.77-1.63; P = .56) or all-cause mortality at 90 days (218 deaths [15.8%] vs 201 deaths [17.8%]; OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.68-1.12; P = .27). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with acute ischemic stroke, endovascular therapy with mechanical thrombectomy vs standard medical care with tPA was associated with improved functional outcomes and higher rates of angiographic revascularization, but no significant difference in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage or all-cause mortality at 90 days.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations453
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207