Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Endovascular therapy may not be beneficial for patients with mild acute ischemic stroke compared to best medical management
  1. Feng Zheng1,
  2. Niklas von Spreckelsen2,
  3. Weipeng Hu1
  1. 1 Department of Neurosurgery, Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Quanzhou, China
  2. 2 Department of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Professor Weipeng Hu, Neurosurgery, Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Quanzhou, Fujian, China; neurosurgery_fyey{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We read with great interest the meta-analysis by Lin et al on the comparison of the clinical effectiveness between endovascular therapy (EVT) and best medical management (BMM) in patients with mild acute ischemic stroke (AIS).1 The study is of profound academic importance, and there are some points that we would like to address.

In the “Statistical analyses” section, the authors described how they pooled data across studies by using the fixed effects model based on an inverse variance method. Subsequently, in the “Results – Primary outcome” section, the authors stated that for AIS patients with National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores ≤5, pooled results from the fixed effects model showed that EVT compared with BMM was associated with a higher rate of being disability-free …

View Full Text


  • Contributors FZ drafted the manuscript and performed the statistical analysis. NvS provided the statistical software and helped perform the statistical analysis. WH checked the manuscript data and was responsible for its submission.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles