Back

Are There Sex Differences in Thrombectomy Utilisation in Treatment of Acute Ischaemic Stroke? A Systematic Review and meta-analysis

Mead, G. E.; Baker, S. C.; Micallef, C.

2023-03-14 neurology
10.1101/2023.03.11.23287149 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesMechanical thrombectomy (MT) is a highly effective treatment for acute ischaemic stroke (AIS). Our aim was to determine whether there are differences in access to thrombectomy between men and women; this is an important question because a previous meta-analysis had shown that women were less likely than men to receive intravenous thrombolysis for AIS. MaterialsThis was a systematic review and meta-analysis. MethodsMedical databases (Embase, Medline and APA Web of Science) were searched for eligible studies from 01/01/2010-30/09/2021. Two independent authors screened titles and abstracts and scrutinised full texts. Eligible studies were hospital-based, registry-based, or administrative data studies reporting sex-specific data on patients treated with thrombectomy for AIS, in representative populations of patients with AIS. Studies including only posterior circulation strokes were excluded. Summary unadjusted odds ratios were calculated to compare MT utilisation in men and women. Results1,379 citations were retrieved, 76 underwent full review and 16 were included in the meta-analysis, which comprised 5,281,009 stroke cases (47.2% women, 52.8% men). The summary unadjusted OR for sex differences in thrombectomy use was 0.931 (95% CI 0.834-1.040, p=0.206), indicating women had lower odds of receiving MT though confidence intervals overlapped one. There was statistically significant heterogeneity between studies (Q=1043.13 p<0.0001, I2=98.56%). ConclusionWe found no clear evidence that women were less likely to receive thrombectomy then men. Future studies should continue to report sex-specific data to ensure that there is equity of access to thrombectomy irrespective of sex.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.