As we’ve learned from prior publications, the conclusions section of the abstract is the ideal location to “spin” your article to generate news releases. This article, from JAMA Neurology, compares thrombolysis to endovascular intervention for acute carotid artery occlusions and states “Intravenous thrombolysis should be administered as first-line treatment in patients with early cervical ICA occlusion.”
That’s a pretty strong statement, without qualifiers. And, it means it received press coverage from MedPage Today, the ACEP News network, etc.
And, they base that statement on retrospective review of a cohort of 21 patients, 13 of whom received thrombolysis and 8 of whom received endovascular intervention. The tPA patients did better, done and done, OR for early neurologic recovery 77 (95% CI 3 to 500). But, then, Table 2 is a mini-systematic review of prior studies – and it turns out the rate of neurologic recovery is more like 40-50% with endovascular treatment, not the 1 in 8 they found in their retrospective cohort. Indeed, the authors go on to state in the article “These findings are in contrast to the results of previous studies”, and have an entirely reasonable, non-conclusive discussion of their findings in context of the other daa.
But, if you want news coverage, say something “interesting” in your abstract.
“Stroke From Acute Cervical Internal Carotid Artery Occlusion”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23007611