Impact of dual antiplatelet therapy on patients with minor stroke after thrombolysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Intravenous thrombolysis for acute minor ischaemic strokes did not provide any benefit in the recent TEMPO-2 trial. In general, single antiplatelet agents are used to improve the outcomes after thrombolysis. This systematic review was done to assess the impact of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after thrombolysis in patients with minor stroke. Materials and methods: A literature search was performed on PubMed, The Cochrane Library and Science Direct for articles between 2016 and 2024. All studies included patients with minor stroke, aged ≥18 years, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of ≤5 (or 3) and those who received thrombolysis prior to DAPT. The primary endpoint was modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-1 at 90 days. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated, and subgroup analysis was done. Results: Only 4 out of 4364 studies originally retrieved met the inclusion criteria and were included. The analysis showed that the mRS score improvement at 90 days was almost similar in both DAPT and single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) groups (RR 1.09; 95% CI (0.98, 1.21), p=0.11). Risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (SICH) (RR 0.65; 95% CI (0.11, 3.97), p=0.64) and stroke recurrence (RR 0.88; 95% CI (0.44, 1.78), p=0.64) was reduced with DAPT compared with SAPT without any major significance. Conclusion: While these findings could not establish the superiority of DAPT over SAPT, DAPT showed slightly better results in functional outcomes, reducing the risk of stroke recurrence and SICH after thrombolysis in patients with minor stroke. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024593717.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".