Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

4 questions · 4 findings · 1 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 1 · 25%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 3 · 75%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Percutaneous vascular interventions vs intravenous thrombolytic treatment

Vascular status (recanalisation rate)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Percutaneous vascular interventions versus intravenous thrombolytic treatment for acute ischaemic stroke 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Percutaneous vascular interventions vs intravenous thrombolytic treatment

Functional outcomes

Percutaneous vascular interventions showed no clear difference in good functional outcome (mRS score 0‐2) compared with intravenous thrombolytic treatment (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Percutaneous vascular interventions versus intravenous thrombolytic treatment for acute ischaemic stroke 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.01 [0.82, 1.25]
3 studies · 443 participants
Low

Percutaneous vascular interventions vs intravenous thrombolytic treatment

Death

Percutaneous vascular interventions showed no clear difference in death compared with intravenous thrombolytic treatment (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Percutaneous vascular interventions versus intravenous thrombolytic treatment for acute ischaemic stroke 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.34 [0.84, 2.14]
3 studies · 443 participants
Low

Percutaneous vascular interventions vs intravenous thrombolytic treatment

Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage at

Percutaneous vascular interventions showed no clear difference in symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage within first 14 days compared with intravenous thrombolytic treatment (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Percutaneous vascular interventions versus intravenous thrombolytic treatment for acute ischaemic stroke 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.99 [0.5, 1.95]
4 studies · 450 participants
Low