On 2014 Aug 04, Ryan Radecki commented:

Post-publication commentary:

"The tPA Cochrane Review Takes Us For Fools"

It’s been 5 years since the last Cochrane Review synthesizing the evidence regarding tPA in acute ischemic stroke. Clearly, given such a time span, in an area of active clinical controversy, a great deal of new, important, randomized evidence has been generated!

Or, sadly, the only new evidence available to inform practice is IST-3 – a study failing to demonstrate benefit, despite its pro-tPA flaws and biases. So, it ought not be a very exciting update, considering the 2009 version included 26 trials, and the 2014 update now includes only 27 trials. Their summary conclusion, with only additional evidence of regression to the mean, ought remain essentially the same, or even less optimistic, right?

http://www.emlitofnote.com/2014/08/the-tpa-cochrane-review-takes-us-for.html

On 2014 Aug 04, Ryan Radecki commented:

Post-publication commentary:

"The tPA Cochrane Review Takes Us For Fools"

It’s been 5 years since the last Cochrane Review synthesizing the evidence regarding tPA in acute ischemic stroke. Clearly, given such a time span, in an area of active clinical controversy, a great deal of new, important, randomized evidence has been generated!

Or, sadly, the only new evidence available to inform practice is IST-3 – a study failing to demonstrate benefit, despite its pro-tPA flaws and biases. So, it ought not be a very exciting update, considering the 2009 version included 26 trials, and the 2014 update now includes only 27 trials. Their summary conclusion, with only additional evidence of regression to the mean, ought remain essentially the same, or even less optimistic, right?

http://www.emlitofnote.com/2014/08/the-tpa-cochrane-review-takes-us-for.html