↓ Skip to main content

Low-Dose versus Standard-Dose Intravenous Alteplase in Acute Ischemic Stroke

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
358 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
491 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Low-Dose versus Standard-Dose Intravenous Alteplase in Acute Ischemic Stroke
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, May 2016
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1515510
Pubmed ID
Authors

Craig S Anderson, Thompson Robinson, Richard I Lindley, Hisatomi Arima, Pablo M Lavados, Tsong-Hai Lee, Joseph P Broderick, Xiaoying Chen, Guofang Chen, Vijay K Sharma, Jong S Kim, Nguyen H Thang, Yongjun Cao, Mark W Parsons, Christopher Levi, Yining Huang, Verónica V Olavarría, Andrew M Demchuk, Philip M Bath, Geoffrey A Donnan, Sheila Martins, Octavio M Pontes-Neto, Federico Silva, Stefano Ricci, Christine Roffe, Jeyaraj Pandian, Laurent Billot, Mark Woodward, Qiang Li, Xia Wang, Jiguang Wang, John Chalmers

Abstract

Background Thrombolytic therapy for acute ischemic stroke with a lower-than-standard dose of intravenous alteplase may improve recovery along with a reduced risk of intracerebral hemorrhage. Methods Using a 2-by-2 quasi-factorial open-label design, we randomly assigned 3310 patients who were eligible for thrombolytic therapy (median age, 67 years; 63% Asian) to low-dose intravenous alteplase (0.6 mg per kilogram of body weight) or the standard dose (0.9 mg per kilogram); patients underwent randomization within 4.5 hours after the onset of stroke. The primary objective was to determine whether the low dose would be noninferior to the standard dose with respect to the primary outcome of death or disability at 90 days, which was defined by scores of 2 to 6 on the modified Rankin scale (range, 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]). Secondary objectives were to determine whether the low dose would be superior to the standard dose with respect to centrally adjudicated symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage and whether the low dose would be noninferior in an ordinal analysis of modified Rankin scale scores (testing for an improvement in the distribution of scores). The trial included 935 patients who were also randomly assigned to intensive or guideline-recommended blood-pressure control. Results The primary outcome occurred in 855 of 1607 participants (53.2%) in the low-dose group and in 817 of 1599 participants (51.1%) in the standard-dose group (odds ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.25; the upper boundary exceeded the noninferiority margin of 1.14; P=0.51 for noninferiority). Low-dose alteplase was noninferior in the ordinal analysis of modified Rankin scale scores (unadjusted common odds ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.13; P=0.04 for noninferiority). Major symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage occurred in 1.0% of the participants in the low-dose group and in 2.1% of the participants in the standard-dose group (P=0.01); fatal events occurred within 7 days in 0.5% and 1.5%, respectively (P=0.01). Mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly between the two groups (8.5% and 10.3%, respectively; P=0.07). Conclusions This trial involving predominantly Asian patients with acute ischemic stroke did not show the noninferiority of low-dose alteplase to standard-dose alteplase with respect to death and disability at 90 days. There were significantly fewer symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhages with low-dose alteplase. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; ENCHANTED ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01422616 .).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 223 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 491 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 482 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 76 15%
Other 70 14%
Student > Master 47 10%
Student > Postgraduate 40 8%
Student > Bachelor 38 8%
Other 121 25%
Unknown 99 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 234 48%
Neuroscience 40 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 21 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 3%
Other 39 8%
Unknown 122 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 289. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 December 2023.
All research outputs
#122,416
of 25,513,063 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#2,883
of 32,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,401
of 319,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#66
of 300 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,513,063 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 122.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,358 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 300 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.