Summary of findings for the main comparison. Recanalisation therapies compared to no recanalisation therapies for wake‐up stroke.

Recanalisation therapies compared to no recanalisation therapies for wake‐up stroke
Patient or population: wake‐up stroke Setting: in‐hospital Intervention: recanalisation therapies Comparison: no recanalisation therapies
Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	№ of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with no recanalisation therapies	Risk with recanalisation therapies
Independent functional outcome (mRS score 0 to 2) at end of follow‐up ‐ not reported	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	Too few participants for analysis
Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage at 14 days follow‐up ‐ not reported	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	Too few participants for analysis
Dead at end of follow‐up ‐ not measured	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	Too few participants for analysis
Quality of life at end of follow‐up	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	Too few participants for analysis
Neurological status at 7 to 14 days and at end of follow‐up	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	Too few participants for analysis
*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; mRS: modified Rankin Scale
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.