Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

64 questions · 75 findings · 7 reviews · Stroke · Headline outcomes only

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 14 · 18.7%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 16 · 21.3%Low 29 · 38.7%Moderate 15 · 20%High 1 · 1.3%

Local anaesthesia vs general anaesthesia

Any stroke within 30 days of operation (primary outcome) · patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid disease

1 finding from 1 review

Local versus general anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
0.91 [0.66, 1.26]
13 studies · 4663 participants
Moderate

Local anaesthesia vs general anaesthesia

Death within 30 days of operation · patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid disease

Local anaesthesia showed no clear difference in death within 30 days of operation compared with general anaesthesia (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Local versus general anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.61 [0.35, 1.06]
12 studies · 4421 participants
Low

Local anaesthesia vs general anaesthesia

Perioperative ipsilateral stroke (< 30 days) · patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid disease

Local anaesthesia showed no clear difference in ipsilateral stroke within 30 days of operation compared with general anaesthesia (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Local versus general anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 1.03 [0.71, 1.48]
2 studies · 3733 participants
Low

Local anaesthesia vs general anaesthesia

Perioperative death and strokes · patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid disease

Local anaesthesia showed no clear difference in stroke or death within 30 days of operation compared with general anaesthesia (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Local versus general anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.85 [0.62, 1.16]
11 studies · 4391 participants
Moderate

Local anaesthesia vs general anaesthesia

Myocardial infarction (0 to 30 days) · patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid disease

Local anaesthesia showed no clear difference in myocardial infarction within 30 days of operation compared with general anaesthesia (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Local versus general anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 1.53 [0.67, 3.47]
12 studies · 4567 participants
Low

Local anaesthesia vs general anaesthesia

Local haemorrhage · patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid disease

Local anaesthesia showed no clear difference in local haemorrhage compared with general anaesthesia (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Local versus general anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.99 [0.79, 1.25]
6 studies · 4186 participants
Moderate

Local anaesthesia vs general anaesthesia

Arteries shunted · patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid disease

Local anaesthesia may leads to lower arteries shunted compared with general anaesthesia (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Local versus general anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.25 [0.22, 0.29]
8 studies · 4133 participants
Low

General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia

Functional outcomes · acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment (long‐term)

3 findings from 1 review

Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 90 participants
Very low
Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.21 [0.93, 1.58]
4 studies · 625 participants
Low
Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
7 studies · 978 participants
Low

General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia

Neurological impairment · acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment (long‐term)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

2 findings from 1 review

Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
7 studies · 982 participants
Low

General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia

Stroke‐related mortality · acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment (long‐term)

General anaesthesia showed no clear difference in stroke‐related mortality compared with non‐general anaesthesia (low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.88 [0.64, 1.22]
6 studies · 843 participants
Low
Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.98 [0.52, 1.84]
3 studies · 330 participants
Low

General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia

Intracranial haemorrhage · acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment (long‐term)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

2 findings from 1 review

Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.92 [0.65, 1.29]
5 studies · 693 participants
Low

General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia

Target artery revascularisation status · acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment (long‐term)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia

Time to revascularisation · acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment (long‐term)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

2 findings from 1 review

Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
5 studies · 498 participants
Very low

General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia

Adverse events · acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment (long‐term)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia

Target artery revascularisation (dichotomous; mTICI 2b–3) · acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment (long‐term)

General anaesthesia probably leads to higher target artery revascularisation (dichotomous; mTICI 2b–3) compared with non‐general anaesthesia (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.1 [1.02, 1.18]
7 studies · 982 participants
Moderate

General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia

Adverse events (haemodynamic instability) · acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment (long‐term)

General anaesthesia may leads to lower adverse events (haemodynamic instability) compared with non‐general anaesthesia (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.21 [0.05, 0.79]
2 studies · 229 participants
Low

Motor neuroprosthesis vs another assistive technology device

Functional ability: independence with activities of daily living at discharge from hospital · promoting recovery of function after stroke

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Motor neuroprosthesis for promoting recovery of function after stroke 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Motor neuroprosthesis vs another assistive technology device

Activities involving limbs · promoting recovery of function after stroke

1 finding from 1 review

Motor neuroprosthesis for promoting recovery of function after stroke 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 605 participants
Low

Motor neuroprosthesis vs another assistive technology device

Participation scales of HRQoL timed measures at the end of treatment · promoting recovery of function after stroke

1 finding from 1 review

Motor neuroprosthesis for promoting recovery of function after stroke 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
3 studies · 632 participants
Very low

Motor neuroprosthesis vs another assistive technology device

Exercise capacity · promoting recovery of function after stroke

1 finding from 1 review

Motor neuroprosthesis for promoting recovery of function after stroke 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 692 participants
Low