Extended thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke: A Bayesian meta-analysis and umbrella review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background For acute ischemic stroke, national practice guidelines recommend thrombolysis within a 4.5-hour time window from symptom onset. Randomized trials with advanced neuroimaging have now examined extended thrombolytic time windows, and multiple meta-analyses have provided positive endorsements. However, these previous meta-analyses have not fully exploited the available data, examined quality of life, or reported the probability of clinically meaningful effects. This meta-analysis addresses these potential shortcomings. Methods We performed a i) systematic literature review up to August 1, 2025, of all randomized controlled trials comparing thrombolysis (alteplase or tenecteplase) with the assistance of advanced neuroimaging to standard, non-thrombolytic therapy in acute ischemic stroke patients with unknown time or beyond 4.5 hours since symptom onset and ii) an umbrella review of previous meta-analyses addressing this issue. Our primary outcome was the mean difference in the utility-weighted modified Rankin Scale (uw-mRS) scores. Secondary outcomes were the absolute risk difference (ARD) for minor disability status and mortality. Bayesian random effects meta-analyses were performed assuming a normal-normal hierarchical model with non-informative priors, which permitted probability calculations for benefit, harm, and regions of practical equivalence (ROPE). Results Six original randomized trials of extended thrombolysis and 7 meta-analyses were identified but none had considered a uw-mRS score or reported direct probability statements regarding benefit or harm. Our primary uw-mRS outcome showed a ROPE probability of 99% with only a 1% probability of a clinically beneficial response with extended alteplase. There was also a 72% probability that mortality increased by at least 1 life / 100 treated with extended thrombolysis. Conclusions In contrast with previous publications, this meta-analysis and umbrella review highlights the uncertainty of clinical benefits from extended thrombolysis treatment windows and the need for further high-quality research before this treatment is accepted into routine practice.
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 | 0.059 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".