Read Original Story

MRI Images May Pinpoint Time of Stroke


4 Star



MRI Images May Pinpoint Time of Stroke

Our Review Summary

This is a story about the possible use of MRI scans to help determine the onset time of stroke.  It provided a clear explanation about how this can be an issue for people who awaken to find that they have had a stroke sometime while sleeping or someone who knows when their symptoms of stroke began but are able to articulate this information.  The story explained that the decision about whether to treat a person who has had a stroke with the medication tPA rests on this piece of information.  While discussing the results of the soon to be published story, the story indicated that these results need to be validated before the technology could be adopted for this purpose.


Why This Matters

It was noteworthy that this story largely avoided hype, injecting caution about further research that is needed, while clearly showing what the potential impact of this research could be.


Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

There was no discussion of costs – not for the individual and not for health planners and society. As we discussed in the “availability” criterion above, this is an important question.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?


The story reported that the test was 90% accurate, but it could have provided more insight to readers about what this  90% means.

This study is really just about predicting whether the stroke was in the past 3 hours or not. It would have been helpful to show the net effect size for strokes within 3 hours vs. those > 3 hours – it is not a very big absolute difference, but that is the cut-point that has been used.

It also could have included some information about how the rates of complication change when tPA is given to patients beyond this 3 (or 4.5 even) hour window.

Nonetheless, we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

There was no mention of any possible harms associated this application of MRI technology.  Although the harms would likely be small, the harm that may arise from incidental findings is worth noting.  The more you scan – something being proposed in this study – the more you find, including things you didn’t need to find. That’s worth at least a line.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?


The story mentioned that the study reported on studied MRI scans from 130 patients who had had strokes to examine how well this technology could be used to determine whether the stroke had started with the previous 3 hours or not.  It mentioned that the study reported that the test had 90% accuracy in making this retrospective determination.

The story mentioned a couple of limitations of the study and what the next research steps may be before deciding whether MRI really is a valuable tool to use as a diagnostic for time of stroke onset.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?


 No disease mongering about stroke in this story.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?


The story included quotes from independent experts.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?


The story provided insight about a couple of situations in which it wasn’t possible to determine the time of stroke onset.  The study reported on whether MRI could be used in these sorts of situations when the patient isn’t able to provide information about the time of stroke onset.

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

The story could have done a better job raising the question of availability of MRI around the US for urgent use at times like those described in the story or in the study – when there is a question about the 3 hour window.  The story alluded to this but was not fully discussed in the context of availability of treatment. Do 80% of hospitals or hospital regions have MRIs ready for this use?  50%?  10%? Availability of the technology in question is a key concern – with huge cost implications.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?


The story was clear about the ‘novelty’ of using MRI technology in this way.  The story did not hype MRI as a new technology but rather as a  technology that was not commonly used for the purpose reported on.  The story did include a quote from the lead study author that the current study supported results that have been published in the past.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?


It’s clear that the story did not rely solely or largely on a news release.

Total Score: 7 of 10 Satisfactory


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.