Clinical evidence comparing bridging and direct endovascular thrombectomy: progress and controversies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical evidence comparing bridging endovascular thrombectomy (bEVT) with intravenous thrombolysis and direct endovascular thrombectomy (dEVT) without thrombolysis for patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) presented directly to an EVT-capable center is overwhelming but inconsistent. This study aimed to analyze the progress and controversies in clinical evidence based on current meta-analyses. Three databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, were searched. Relevant data were extracted and reviewed from the pooled studies. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Review (AMSTAR-2) was used for quality assessment. Twenty-five meta-analyses were finally included. There were 56% (14/25) from Asian countries, 20% (5/25) from North America, and 24% (6/25) from Europe. The majority (72%, 18/25) of evidence arose in a short period from 2020 to 2022 with the serial publication of four randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Among the 25 meta-analyses, 11 pooled at least three RCTs but there is substantial overlap among seven (five recruited the same four RCTs solely and two recruited the same three RCTs solely). Meanwhile, quality rating based on AMSTAR-2 showed 16 'high' rated studies (64%). For functional independence, 40% (10/25) of studies favored bEVT and 60% showed neutral results. For symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, most studies (82.6%, 19/23) showed no significant difference. Non-RCT studies contributed to evidence favoring bEVT. Current RCTs provide an update of clinical evidence comparing bEVT and dEVT. However, they simultaneously contribute to an unnecessary overlap among studies. Contemporary observational studies demonstrated different but possibly confounded evidence. Thus, this issue still requires more clinical evidence under standard procedures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.070 | 0.189 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".