Table 1. Summary of methodological characteristics of included studies pertinent to the study outcomes.
| Study | Year | Sample size (number) | PC-ASPECTS cut-off | Clinical Measures | Imaging | Patients treated with thrombolysis (number) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scale 1: Unfavorable outcome prediction by PC-ASPECTS per score decrease | ||||||
| Junji Uno et al. [17] | 2020 | 50 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–2 vs 3–6 | CTP | 50 with IA-EVT |
| Xuelei Zhang et al. [18] | 2019 | 103 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–2 vs 3–6 | MRI (DWI) | 103 with IA-EVT |
| Sheng-Feng Lin et al. [19] | 2018 | 125 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–2 vs 3–6 | MRI (DWI) | 1 with IV thrombolysis only |
| Chuanhui Li et al. [20] | 2018 | 68 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–3 vs 4–6 | CTA-SI or MRI (DWI) | 68 with IA-EVT |
| Woong Yoon et al. [21] | 2015 | 50 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–2 vs 3–6 | MRI (DWI) | 14 with IV thrombolysis, 50 with IA thrombectomy |
| Isabelle Mourand et al. [22] | 2014 | 31 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–2 vs 3–6 | MRI (DWI) | 19 with IA-EVT and IV thrombolysis 12 with IA-EVT only |
| Simon Nagel et al. [23] | 2012 | 50 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–2 vs 3–6 | MRI (DWI) | 41 with recanalization therapy |
| Hideaki Tei et al. [24] | 2010 | 132 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–2 vs 3–6 | MRI (DWI) | (No data provided) |
| Scale 2: Unfavorable outcomes prediction by binary PC-ASPECTS with a cut-off value | ||||||
| Volker Maus et al. [25] | 2019 | 104 | 0–8, 9–10 | 90-day mRS of 0–2 vs 3–6 | CTA-SI or MRI (DWI) | 104 with IA EVT 49 with IV + IA thrombolysis |
| Sheng-Feng Lin et al. [19] | 2018 | 125 | 0–7, 8–10 | 90-day mRS of 0–2 vs 3–6 | MRI (DWI) | 1 with IV thrombolysis only |
| Gang Luo et al. [26] | 2018 | 69 | 0–5, 6–10 | 90-day mRS of 0–2 vs 3–6 | MRI (DWI) | 69 with IA EVT |
| Woo-Jin Lee et al. [27] | 2017 | 292 | 0–6, 7–10 | 90-day mRS of 0–2 vs 3–6 | MRI (DWI) | 62 with recanalization therapy |
| Woong Yoon et al. [21] | 2015 | 50 | 0–6, 7–10 | 90-day mRS of 0–2 vs 3–6 | MRI (DWI) | 50 with IA EVT |
| Puetz et al. [28] (BASIC registry) | 2011 | 158 | 0–7, 8–10 | 90-day mRS of 0–2 vs 3–6 | CTA-SI | 15 with IV thrombolysis only 53 with IA EVT only 28 with IV and IA thrombolysis |
| Puetz et al. [12] (BASIC registry) | 2008 | 46 | 0–7, 8–10 | 90-day mRS of 0–3 vs 4–6 | CTA-SI | 36 with any thrombolysis 19 with IV thrombolysis 29 with IA thrombolysis |
| Scale 3: PC-ASPECTS scores between unfavorable and favorable outcomes | ||||||
| Beilei Chen et al. [29] | 2019 | 68 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–2 vs 3–6 | CT | 68 with IA-EVT |
| Xuelei Zhang et al. [18] | 2019 | 103 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–2 vs 3–6 | MRI (DWI) | 103 with IA-EVT |
| Fana Alemseged et al. [30] | 2019 | 60 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–3 vs 4–6 | CTA-SI, CTP | 28 with IV thrombolysis, 25 with IA-EVT |
| Francisco Antunes Dias et al. [31] | 2019 | 27 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–3 vs 4–6 | CTA | 27 with IA-EVT |
| Sheng-Feng Lin et al. [19] | 2018 | 125 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–2 vs 3–6 | MRI (DWI) | 1 with IV thrombolysis only |
| Alexandros Rentzos et al. [32] | 2018 | 110 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–2 vs 3–6 | CTA-SI | 110 with IA-EVT |
| Chuanhui Li et al. [20] | 2018 | 68 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–3 vs 4–6 | CTA-SI or MRI (DWI) | 68 with IA-EVT |
| Jun Young Chang et al. [33] | 2017 | 59 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–3 vs 4–6 | MRI (DWI) | 20 with IV thrombolysis 59 with IA-EVT |
| Francisco Antunes Dias et al. [34] | 2017 | 63 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–3 vs 4–6 | NCCT | 15 with IV thrombolysis 19 with IA-EVT 29 with no recanalization |
| Woo-Jin Lee et al. [35] | 2017 | 98 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–2 vs 3–6 | MRI (DWI) | 98 with no recanalization |
| Robert Fahed et al. [36] | 2017 | 34 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–2 vs 3–6 | MRI (DWI) | 34 with IA-EVT |
| Seungnam Son et al. [37] | 2016 | 35 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–2 vs 3–6 | MRI (DWI) | 35 with IA-EVT |
| Valerio Da Ros et al. [38] | 2016 | 15 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–3 vs 4–6 | CTA-SI | 15 with IA-EVT |
| Woong Yoon et al. [21] | 2015 | 50 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–2 vs 3–6 | MRI (DWI) | 14 with IV thrombolysis, 50 with IA thrombectomy |
| S. Mundiyanapurath et al. [39] | 2015 | 22 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–2 vs 3–6 | MRI (DWI, SWI) | 4 with IV thrombolysis only 4 with IA EVT 14 with IV and IA thrombolysis |
| Isabelle Mourand et al. [22] | 2014 | 31 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–2 vs 3–6 | MRI (DWI) | 19 with IA-EVT and IV thrombolysis 12 with IA-EVT only |
| Simon Nagel et al. [23] | 2012 | 50 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–2 vs 3–6 | MRI (DWI) | 41 with recanalization therapy |
| Alexander Karameshev et al. [40] | 2011 | 36 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–3 vs 4–6 | MRI (DWI) | 36 with IA-EVT |
| Hideaki Tei et al. [24] | 2010 | 132 | – | 90-day mRS of 0–2 vs 3–6 | MRI (DWI) | (No data provided) |
BASIC, The Basilar Artery International Cooperative Study; CTP, Computed tomography perfusion scan; CTA-SI, computed tomography angiography-source imaging; ECASS: European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study; EVT, endovascular therapy; mRS, modified Rankin Scale; NCCT, non-contrast computed tomography; IA, intra-arterial; IV, intravenous; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; SWI, susceptibility-weighted imaging. IV thrombolysis defined as treatment with tissue plasminogen activator.