Overview of systematic reviews comparing endovascular to best medical treatment for large-vessel occlusion acute ischaemic stroke: an umbrella review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The literature on endovascular treatment (EVT) for large-vessel occlusion (LVO) acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) has been rapidly increasing after the publication of positive randomized-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and a plethora of systematic reviews (SRs) showing benefit compared to best medical therapy (BMT) for LVO. Objectives: An overview of SRs (umbrella review) and meta-analysis of primary RCTs were performed to summarize the literature and present efficacy and safety of EVT. Design and methods: Pubmed, Embase and Epistemonikos databases were searched from January 2015 until 15 October 2023. All SRs of RCTs comparing EVT to BMT were included. Quality was assessed using Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews scores and the RoB 2 Cochrane Collaboration tool, as appropriate. GRADE approach was used to evaluate the strength of evidence. Data were presented according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews statement. The primary outcome was 3-month good functional outcome [modified Rankin scale (mRS) score 0-2]. Results: 2924 patients randomized to BMT). High-quality evidence shows that EVT is associated with an increased likelihood of good functional outcome [risk ratio (RR) 1.78 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.54-2.06); 166 more per 1000 patients], independent ambulation [mRS-scores 0-3; RR 1.50 (95% CI: 1.37-1.64); 174 more per 1000 patients], excellent functional outcome [mRS-scores 0-1; RR 1.90 (95% CI: 1.62-2.22); 118 more per 1000 patients] at 3 months. EVT was associated with reduced 3-month mortality [RR 0.81 (95% CI: 0.74-0.88); 61 less per 1000 patients] despite an increase in symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage [sICH; RR 1.65 (95% CI: 1.23-2.21); 22 more per 1000 patients]. Conclusion: In patients with AIS due to LVO in the anterior or posterior circulation, within 24 h from symptom onset, EVT improves functional outcomes and increases the chance of survival despite increased sICH risk. Registration: PROSPERO Registration Number CRD42023461138.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".