Back

Shifts in Clinical Practice-Changing Acute Ischemic Stroke Research Over the Last Decade

Khalid, M.; Nguyen, C. H.; Li, J.; Bala, A.; Jovin, T. G.; Jadhav, A.; Le, N. M.; Gomez Farias, J.; Kanakhara, F.; Lee, E. A.; Liebeskind, D. S.; Samaha, J. N.; Azeem, H.; Kfoury, B.; Yarlagadda, A. N.; Sheth, S. A.

2026-03-24 neurology
10.64898/2026.03.22.26349031 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: The past decade has witnessed rapid growth of clinical-trial programs in Europe and Asia, with randomized clinical trials (RCTs) publications from these regions outpacing those of the U.S. However, limited data exist quantifying their relative influence on practice-defining results. Here, we evaluate these shifts by analyzing geographic origin, funding source, and clinical impact of practice-changing RCTs. Methods: From the 2018 and 2026 American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) Acute Ischemic Stroke (AIS) Guidelines, we identified RCTs supporting new recommendations and extracted geographic origin (China/Europe/USA/Other), funding source (government/academic/non-profit vs. industry (private/mixed); NIH vs. non-NIH), and research topic (endovascular therapy (EVT), thrombolysis, imaging, poststroke care, and prehospital and systems of care). Analyses used unweighted, reference-density-weighted, and clinical-impact-weighted strategies. Temporal trends were assessed using the chi-square/Fisher?s exact tests, with Rao-Scott adjusted chi-square tests accounting for weighting. Results: We identified 21 new recommendations (47 RCTs) in 2018 and 45 (89 RCTs) in 2026. In 2018, Europe led (51.1%), followed by the U.S. (31.9%), while China and other regions contributed minimally. By 2026, Europe remained first (36%), China rose to second (29.2%), and the U.S. declined to the smallest share (14.6%), across all weighted analyses (p<0.01). NIH-funded trials declined significantly from 21.3% (unweighted), 27.4% (reference-density-weighted), and 27.3% (clinical-impact-weighted) in 2018 to 4.5%, 4.8%, and 3.4%, respectively in 2026 (p<0.01 across all weighted strategies). Conclusion: In this analysis, we identify a shift away from U.S.-based clinical trials and increasing contributions from China. U.S.-based RCTs fell from the second most cited to the least cited sources of practice-changing recommendations. NIH-funded research fell from nearly one-quarter in 2018 to <5% in 2026, highlighting increasing dependence on non-U.S. studies for U.S.-based care. These findings raise questions about the effectiveness of current AIS research paradigms in the U.S. Keywords: Acute Ischemic Stroke, Endovascular Thrombectomy, Thrombolytic Therapy, NIH Funding

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.5%
2
Stroke
35 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.6%
3
Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.3%
50% of probability mass above
4
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.4%
5
Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
6
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.0%
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 38%
3.7%
8
Journal of the Neurological Sciences
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
9
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
10
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
11
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
12
Neurology
44 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
13
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
14
Neurocritical Care
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
15
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
16
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 71%
0.9%
17
European Journal of Neurology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
18
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
19
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
20
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
21
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%