Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 399

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Efficacy of site-independent telemedicine in the STRokE DOC trial: a randomised, blinded, prospective study

Open access
Meyer, Brett C, Raman, Rema, Hemmen, Thomas, Obler, Richard, Zivin, Justin A, Rao, Ramesh, Thomas, Ronald G, Lyden, Patrick D·2008·The Lancet Neurology

Abstract

Background To increase effective use of rt-PA for acute stroke, vascular neurology expertise must be disseminated more widely. We prospectively assessed whether telemedicine (real-time, 2 way audio/video and DICOM interpretation) or telephone was superior for decision-making in acute telemedicine consultations. Methods Acute stroke patients were randomized to telemedicine or telephone consultation. Primary outcome measure was whether the thrombolytic treatment decision was correct, as determined by central adjudication. Secondary outcomes included rt-PA use-rate, 90 day functional outcomes, hemorrhages, and technical observations. Findings Two hundred thirty-four patients were prospectively evaluated. Mean NIHSS score was 9.5 (11.4±8.7 telemedicine, 7.7±7.0 telephone; p=0.0020). One telemedicine consult (0.9%) was aborted for technical reasons, though was included in intention-to-treat analyses. Correct treatment decision was made more often in telemedicine (98.2% telemedicine, 82% telephone; OR 10.9; 95%CI 2.7-44.6; p=0.0009). IV rt-PA use-rate was 25% (28% telemedicine, 23% telephone; OR 1.3; 95%CI 0.7-2.5; p=0.4248). Ninety day functional outcomes were not different for BI(95–100) (OR 0.6; 95%CI 0.4-1.1; p=0.1268) or for mRS (OR 0.6; 95%CI 0.3-1.1; p=0.0898). There was no mortality difference (OR 1.6; 95%CI 0.8-3.4; p=0.2690). Post-rt-PA ICH rates were not different (7% telemedicine, 8% telephone; OR 0.8; 95%CI 0.1-6.3; p=1.0). There was a difference noted for amount of non-completed data (3.1% telemedicine, 12.0% telephone; OR 0.2; 95%CI 0.1-0.3; p<0.001). Interpretation This trial reports that stroke telemedicine consultations result in more accurate decision making, compared to telephone, and can serve as a model for the effective use of telemedicine in other medical fields. The more appropriate decisions, high rt-PA userates, improved data collection, low ICH rates, low technical complications, and favorable time requirements all support telemedicine’s efficacy, most specifically for decision-making, and may enable more practitioners to use telemedicine in daily stroke care.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1474-4422(08)70171-6

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 399

Metadata

Authors
Meyer, B. C., Raman, R., Hemmen, T., Obler, R., Zivin, J. A., Rao, R., Thomas, R. G., & Lyden, P. D.
Venue
The Lancet Neurology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-09
Volume
7
Issue
9
Pages
787-795
ISSN
1474-4422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2053088520
Cited by
399
References
1
FWCI
23.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficacy of site-independent telemedicine in the STRokE DOC trial: a randomised, blinded, prospective study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1474-4422(08)70171-6
The paper
Meyer, B. C., Raman, R., Hemmen, T., Obler, R., Zivin, J. A., Rao, R., Thomas, R. G., & Lyden, P. D. (2008). Efficacy of site-independent telemedicine in the STRokE DOC trial: a randomised, blinded, prospective study. The Lancet Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(08)70171-6

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.