What do systematic reviews say?

Oral care interventions (nurse-assisted toothbrushing, oral and pharyngeal cavity rinse, decontamination with antibiotics or antiseptics) vs usual care

• Interventions for improving oral health in people after stroke 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 83 participants
  Very low

Oral care interventions (nurse-assisted toothbrushing, oral and pharyngeal cavity rinse, decontamination with antibiotics or antiseptics) vs usual care

• Interventions for improving oral health in people after stroke 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 38 participants
  Low

Oral care interventions (nurse-assisted toothbrushing, oral and pharyngeal cavity rinse, decontamination with antibiotics or antiseptics) vs usual care

• Interventions for improving oral health in people after stroke 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 83 participants
  Very low

Oral care interventions (nurse-assisted toothbrushing, oral and pharyngeal cavity rinse, decontamination with antibiotics or antiseptics) vs usual care

• Interventions for improving oral health in people after stroke 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 38 participants
  Low

Oral care interventions (nurse-assisted toothbrushing, oral and pharyngeal cavity rinse, decontamination with antibiotics or antiseptics) vs usual care

Oral health care interventions showed no clear difference in presence of related infection: pneumonia (Analysis 1.7) compared with usual care (low certainty).

• Interventions for improving oral health in people after stroke 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 4.17 [0.82, 21.11]
  1 study · 204 participants
  Low

Oral care interventions (nurse-assisted toothbrushing, oral and pharyngeal cavity rinse, decontamination with antibiotics or antiseptics) vs usual care

It is very uncertain whether oral health care interventions changes stroke survivor and providers' knowledge to OHC: knowledge (Analysis… compared with usual care (very low certainty).

• Interventions for improving oral health in people after stroke 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  SMD 0.7 [0.06, 1.35]
  3 studies · 728 participants
  Very low

Oral care interventions (nurse-assisted toothbrushing, oral and pharyngeal cavity rinse, decontamination with antibiotics or antiseptics) vs usual care

It is very uncertain whether oral health care interventions changes stroke survivor and providers' attitudes to OHC: attitude (Analysis… compared with usual care (very low certainty).

• Interventions for improving oral health in people after stroke 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  SMD 0.28 [0.01, 0.54]
  3 studies · 728 participants
  Very low

Percutaneous vascular interventions vs intravenous thrombolytic treatment

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

• 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

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

• 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

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

• 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

Percutaneous vascular interventions vs intravenous thrombolytic treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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

Endovascular thrombectomy interventions vs usual care

Endovascular thrombectomy interventions leads to higher favourable functional outcome at the end of compared with standard therapy (high certainty).

• Endovascular thrombectomy and intra‐arterial interventions for acute ischaemic stroke 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.5 [1.37, 1.63]
  18 studies · 3715 participants
  High

Endovascular thrombectomy interventions vs usual care

Endovascular thrombectomy interventions leads to lower death from all causes at the end of compared with standard therapy (high certainty).

• Endovascular thrombectomy and intra‐arterial interventions for acute ischaemic stroke 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 0.85 [0.75, 0.97]
  19 studies · 3793 participants
  High

Endovascular thrombectomy interventions vs usual care

Endovascular thrombectomy interventions showed no clear difference in symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage at the end of compared with standard therapy (high certainty).

• Endovascular thrombectomy and intra‐arterial interventions for acute ischaemic stroke 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.05 [0.72, 1.52]
  10 studies · 1752 participants
  High

Endovascular thrombectomy interventions vs usual care

Endovascular thrombectomy interventions probably leads to higher neurological status at the end of compared with standard therapy (moderate certainty).

• Endovascular thrombectomy and intra‐arterial interventions for acute ischaemic stroke 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 2.03 [1.21, 3.4]
  3 studies · 334 participants
  Moderate

Endovascular thrombectomy interventions vs usual care

Endovascular thrombectomy interventions probably leads to higher degree of recanalisation (TIMI grade) compared with standard therapy (moderate certainty).

• Endovascular thrombectomy and intra‐arterial interventions for acute ischaemic stroke 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 8.25 [1.63, 41.9]
  2 studies · 198 participants
  Moderate

Summary of findings: Restitutive interventions vs control

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings: Restitutive interventions vs control

It is very uncertain whether summary of findings: Restitutive interventions changes visual field (TAP border position in degrees of visual angle from… compared with control (very low certainty).

• Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  MD 1.02
  1 study · 19 participants
  Very low

Summary of findings: Restitutive interventions vs control

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings: Restitutive interventions vs control

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for visual field defects in people with stroke 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found