Cochrane · systematic review · CD012503
Remote ischaemic conditioning for preventing and treating ischaemic stroke
Zhao, W, Zhang, J, Sadowsky, MG, 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
14
current version
GRADE rated
6
No studies
7
Included studies
NR
No studies 7 · 50%Ungraded 1 · 7.1%Very low 1 · 7.1%Low 5 · 35.7%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
RIC versus non‐RIC for preventing ischaemic stroke
Population: people at risk for ischaemic stroke
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Ischaemic stroke or recurrent ischaemic stroke RIC vs non‐RIC | RR 0.31 [0.12, 0.76] | 3 studies · 371 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Death or dependency RIC vs non‐RIC | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 292 participants | Ungraded |
Improvement in neurological impairment ‐ not reported RIC vs non‐RIC | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Improvement in psychological and cognitive impairment ‐ not measured RIC vs non‐RIC | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Cardiovascular events ‐ not reported RIC vs non‐RIC | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events associated with RIC treatment RIC vs non‐RIC | RR 10.91 [2.01, 59.28] | 3 studies · 371 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Stroke severity RIC vs non‐RIC | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 189 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
RIC versus non‐RIC treating ischaemic stroke
Population: people with ischaemic stroke
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Ischaemic stroke or recurrent ischaemic stroke at completion of RIC vs non‐RIC treating ischaemic stroke | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Death or dependency RIC vs non‐RIC treating ischaemic stroke | RR 2.34 [1.19, 4.61] | 1 study · 285 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Improvement in neurological impairment ‐ not measured RIC vs non‐RIC treating ischaemic stroke | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Improvement in psychological and cognitive impairment at completion of RIC vs non‐RIC treating ischaemic stroke | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 105 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Cardiovascular events ‐ not reported RIC vs non‐RIC treating ischaemic stroke | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events associated with RIC treatment ‐ not reported RIC vs non‐RIC treating ischaemic stroke | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Stroke severity RIC vs non‐RIC treating ischaemic stroke | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 175 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |