Summary of findings for the comparison of first-line ADAPT with first-line stent retriever
| Certainty assessment | No of patients | Effect | Quality of evidence | Importance | ||||||||
| No of studies | Study design | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Other considerations | First-line ADAPT | First-line stent retriever | Relative (95% CI) | Absolute (95% CI) | ||
| mRS score 0–2 | ||||||||||||
| 2 | Randomized trials | Serious* | Not serious | Serious† | Not serious | None | 152/315 (48.3%) | 158/318 (49.7%) |
RR=0.97
(0.83 to 1.14) OR=0.94 (0.69 to 1.29) |
15 fewer per 1 000
(from 70 more to 84 fewer) | ⨁⨁◯◯ LOW | CRITICAL |
| mTICI 2b–3 | ||||||||||||
| 2 | Randomized trials | Serious* | Not serious | Serious† | Not serious | None | 286/325 (88.0%) | 278/325 (85.5%) |
RR=1.03
(0.97 to 1.09) OR=1.25 (0.79 to 1.97) |
26 more per 1 000
(from 26 fewer to 77 more) | ⨁⨁◯◯ LOW | CRITICAL |
*ASTER was not designed or powered to demonstrate non-inferiority.
†Rescue therapy with another type of device was allowed in both trials.
ADAPT, a direct aspiration first pass technique; CI, confidence interval; mRS, modified Rankin Scale; RR, risk ratio; mTICI, modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction.