You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 12, Issue 8
  • Outcome of patients with large vessel occlusion stroke after first admission in telestroke spoke versus comprehensive stroke center

Responses

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Ischemic Stroke
Original research
Outcome of patients with large vessel occlusion stroke after first admission in telestroke spoke versus comprehensive stroke center
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 14 July 2020
    Regarding: Outcome of patients with large vessel occlusion stroke after first admission in telestroke spoke versus comprehensive stroke center
    • Dag O Sætre, Radiology consultant Østfold Hospital Trust
    • Other Contributors:
      • Geir Mjøen, Resident

    Dear Editor,

    Kaminsky et al1 present an interesting study regarding the logistics of patients eligible for endovascular stroke therapy (EVT). They conclude that whether patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) are first admitted to a hospital with or without this treatment does not affect patient outcome.
    However, there are some difficulties interpreting the main statistical multivariate analyses. Firstly, although there is a clear presentation of how the main multivariate logistic regression analysis is performed, the covariates included in the model are not presented, and the model is not shown in any table. Secondly, the authors have included variables solely based on the strength of their association with the outcome, and not based on the potential of the variable to confound the relationship between the variable of interest (which center the patient is admitted to first), and the outcome. In this setting, it is our opinion that selecting covariates based on an etiological model, that focuses on the variable of interest, and includes covariates based on the potential for confounding, would be the best strategy.2 We disagree with the authors` choice of a prognostic model.
    We urge the authors to provide a table showing the main analysis, or even repeat the main analysis using an etiological approach to model building and variable selection.
    Despite these shortcomings, we commend the authors for undertaking such a relevant clinical study, and we...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.