MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415466790 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.125.053239

Quality of Evidence in European Stroke Organisation and American Heart Association Stroke Guidelines

2025· article· en· W4415466790 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen O. Brennan, Brian A. Gordon, Craig S. Anderson, Shelagh B. Coutts, Jesse Dawson, Michael D. Hill, Robin Lemmens, Bijoy K. Menon, Christopher Price, Diana Aguiar de Sousa, Götz Thomalla, Georgios Tsivgoulis, Guillaume Turc, Peter J. Kelly, John McCabe

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroke (engine)GuidelineAssociation (psychology)Randomized controlled trialQuality (philosophy)MEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practice relies on clinical guidelines, whose recommendations depend on the quality, relevance, and validity of supporting research. We evaluated the class/strength and level of evidence (LOE) or quality of evidence (QOE) supporting American Heart Association/American Stroke Association and European Stroke Organisation guideline recommendations, and examined temporal changes in LOE. METHODS: Stroke guidelines from American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (1995-2025) and European Stroke Organisation (2014-2025) were identified through society websites and EMBASE/MEDLINE. Eligible documents contained recommendations with class/strength and LOE/QOE. Consensus statements were excluded. Since 2006, American Heart Association/American Stroke Association has classified LOE as A (multiple or large randomized-controlled trials), B (single trial or observational studies), or C (expert opinion). European Stroke Organisation applies the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system (high, moderate, low, and very low QOE). RESULTS: Across 1102 recommendations in 9 current American Heart Association/American Stroke Association stroke guidelines, 156 (14.2%) were supported by LOE A, 559 (50.7%) by LOE B, and 387 (35.1%) by LOE C. Of 407 class I recommendations (ie, should do), and 117 class III recommendations (ie, should not do), 116 (22.1%), 258 (49.2%), and 150 (28.6%) were supported by LOE A, B, and C, respectively. Although the number of recommendations increased across guideline updates (median, 22 [interquartile range, 25th-75th percentiles, 18.0-42.0]), the proportion supported by LOE A declined (median, -4.6% [interquartile range, -7.8 to -0.8]). Across 260 recommendations in 30 European Stroke Organisation guidelines, 19 (7.3%) were supported by high, 62 (23.8%) by moderate, 81 (31.2%) by low, and 98 (37.7%) by very low QOE. Among 90 strong recommendations, 18 (20.0%) were supported by high QOE, and 66.7% of guideline topics had no recommendations supported by high QOE. There was insufficient evidence to make recommendations for 123 (32.7%) clinical questions. CONCLUSIONS: Due to limited randomized data for many important clinical questions, most stroke guideline recommendations are based on low-to-moderate-quality evidence. These findings emphasize the need to improve the funding, design, and delivery of efficient, patient-focused clinical trials.

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)0.185
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.533
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1850.533
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.008
Bibliometrics0.0430.033
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0120.009
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.394
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.150 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207