Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 235

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

Revascularization End Points in Stroke Interventional Trials: Recanalization Versus Reperfusion in IMS-I

Open access
Khatri, Pooja, Neff, Joddi, Broderick, Joseph P., Khoury, Jane C., Carrozzella, Janice, Tomsick, Thomas·2005·Stroke

Abstract

Background and Purpose— The acute stroke literature lacks a standard convention regarding the critical end point of revascularization. Two distinct parameters may be clinically important: (1) recanalization of the primary arterial occlusive lesion (AOL) and (2) global reperfusion of the distal vascular bed. We sought to determine their relationship in the Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) Phase I trial of combined intravenous (IV) and intraarterial (IA) recombinant tissue plasminogen activator. Methods— Sixty-one angiograms were reanalyzed using recanalization and reperfusion scores. The AOL Score was defined as: 0=no recanalization of the primary occlusion, I=incomplete or partial recanalization of the primary occlusion with no distal flow, II=incomplete or partial recanalization of the primary occlusion with distal flow, or III=complete recanalization of the primary occlusion with distal flow. The Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Score was defined as: 0=no perfusion, 1=perfusion past the initial occlusion but no distal branch filling, 2=perfusion and incomplete or slow distal branch filling, or 3=full perfusion with filling of all distal branches. We compared the 2 scores with one another and with good clinical outcome (modified Rankin Score zero to 2). Results— AOL and TIMI scores showed modest agreement (kappa, 0.30; confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.44). Good clinical outcome was seen in 49% of patients with AOL II/III scores ( P =0.055) and 54% with TIMI 2/3 scores ( P =0.019). The 2 methods did not significantly differ in predicting outcome ( P =0.13). Conclusions— AOL recanalization and TIMI reperfusion scores comparably predict clinical outcome in this treatment paradigm. Other modalities may show different relationships between these 2 revascularization end points. Future studies should distinguish between these parameters semantically and methodologically.

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 · 10.1161/01.str.0000185698.45720.58

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 235

Metadata

Authors
Khatri, P., Neff, J., Broderick, J. P., Khoury, J. C., Carrozzella, J., & Tomsick, T.
Venue
Stroke
Published
2005-11
Volume
36
Issue
11
Pages
2400-2403
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W2113442572
Cited by
235
References
1
FWCI
3.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Revascularization End Points in Stroke Interventional Trials: Recanalization Versus Reperfusion in IMS-I. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.str.0000185698.45720.58
The paper
Khatri, P., Neff, J., Broderick, J. P., Khoury, J. C., Carrozzella, J., & Tomsick, T. (2005). Revascularization End Points in Stroke Interventional Trials: Recanalization Versus Reperfusion in IMS-I. Stroke. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.0000185698.45720.58

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.