Limits...
Endovascular treatment versus medical care alone for ischaemic stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Rodrigues FB, Neves JB, Caldeira D, Ferro JM, Ferreira JJ, Costa J - BMJ (2016)

Bottom Line: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Heterogeneity was high among studies.Subgroup analysis of these seven studies yielded a risk ratio of 1.56 (95% confidence interval 1.38 to 1.75) for good functional outcomes and 0.86 (0.69 to 1.06) for mortality, without heterogeneity among the results of the studies.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Laboratory of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Lisbon, Av Prof Egas Moniz 1649-035, Lisbon, Portugal Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Instituto de Medicina Molecular, Lisbon, Portugal Department of Medicine, Hospital de Santa Maria, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Norte, Portugal filipebrodrigues@gmail.com.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Fig 2 Risk of bias summary
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4834754&req=5

f2: Fig 2 Risk of bias summary

Mentions: The overall risk of bias was moderate among studies (fig 2). Random sequence generation, blinding of outcome assessment, and selective reporting were considered as low risk items across studies. For THERAPY and THRACE, the bias associated with random sequence generation is not known owing to lack of information. Outcome assessment at 90 days was conducted in person in ESCAPE, EXTEND-IA, and SWIFT-PRIME, in person or by video visualisation in REVASCAT, by video visualisation in THERAPY, and by telephone in SYNTHESIS and MR CLEAN. IMS III and MR RESCUE did not report the method used for evaluation of outcome assessment—this information was absent from all available documents pertaining to both trials, including protocol and published and unpublished reports. This information is still unavailable for THRACE. Allocation concealment and blinding of participants and staff were classified as high risk owing to study design (that is, prospective randomised open blinded endpoint design). All the studies except for THRACE were at least partially funded by industry. SYNTHESIS, IMS III, and MR RESCUE were publicly funded but also had some support from industry. ESCAPE, MR CLEAN, EXTEND-IA, and REVASCAT had both mixed funding from governmental bodies and unrestricted grants from industry. SWIFT PRIME and THERAPY had only industry support.


Endovascular treatment versus medical care alone for ischaemic stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Rodrigues FB, Neves JB, Caldeira D, Ferro JM, Ferreira JJ, Costa J - BMJ (2016)

Fig 2 Risk of bias summary
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4834754&req=5

f2: Fig 2 Risk of bias summary
Mentions: The overall risk of bias was moderate among studies (fig 2). Random sequence generation, blinding of outcome assessment, and selective reporting were considered as low risk items across studies. For THERAPY and THRACE, the bias associated with random sequence generation is not known owing to lack of information. Outcome assessment at 90 days was conducted in person in ESCAPE, EXTEND-IA, and SWIFT-PRIME, in person or by video visualisation in REVASCAT, by video visualisation in THERAPY, and by telephone in SYNTHESIS and MR CLEAN. IMS III and MR RESCUE did not report the method used for evaluation of outcome assessment—this information was absent from all available documents pertaining to both trials, including protocol and published and unpublished reports. This information is still unavailable for THRACE. Allocation concealment and blinding of participants and staff were classified as high risk owing to study design (that is, prospective randomised open blinded endpoint design). All the studies except for THRACE were at least partially funded by industry. SYNTHESIS, IMS III, and MR RESCUE were publicly funded but also had some support from industry. ESCAPE, MR CLEAN, EXTEND-IA, and REVASCAT had both mixed funding from governmental bodies and unrestricted grants from industry. SWIFT PRIME and THERAPY had only industry support.

Bottom Line: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Heterogeneity was high among studies.Subgroup analysis of these seven studies yielded a risk ratio of 1.56 (95% confidence interval 1.38 to 1.75) for good functional outcomes and 0.86 (0.69 to 1.06) for mortality, without heterogeneity among the results of the studies.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Laboratory of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Lisbon, Av Prof Egas Moniz 1649-035, Lisbon, Portugal Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Instituto de Medicina Molecular, Lisbon, Portugal Department of Medicine, Hospital de Santa Maria, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Norte, Portugal filipebrodrigues@gmail.com.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus