Cochrane · systematic review · CD009292
Percutaneous vascular interventions versus intravenous thrombolytic treatment for acute ischaemic stroke
Lindekleiv, H, Berge, E, Bruins Slot, KMH, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
StrokeAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
4
current version
GRADE rated
3
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 25%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 3 · 75%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Percutaneous vascular interventions compared to intravenous thrombolytic treatment for acute ischaemic stroke
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Good functional outcome (mRS score 0‐2) Percutaneous vascular interventions vs intravenous thrombolytic treatment | RR 1.01 [0.82, 1.25] | 3 studies · 443 participants | Low |
Death Percutaneous vascular interventions vs intravenous thrombolytic treatment | RR 1.34 [0.84, 2.14] | 3 studies · 443 participants | Low |
Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage within first 14 days Percutaneous vascular interventions vs intravenous thrombolytic treatment | RR 0.99 [0.5, 1.95] | 4 studies · 450 participants | Low |
Vascular status (recanalisation rate) Percutaneous vascular interventions vs intravenous thrombolytic treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |