We did a systematic review and meta-analysis. What we did look at is different TIA risk stratification scores and we did a kind of like a network meta-analysis comparing all those strokes together. So there was like some head-to-head comparisons but it was the first time to my knowledge that all those scores were put together under the same meta-analysis. So we did find some interesting findings...
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis. What we did look at is different TIA risk stratification scores and we did a kind of like a network meta-analysis comparing all those strokes together. So there was like some head-to-head comparisons but it was the first time to my knowledge that all those scores were put together under the same meta-analysis. So we did find some interesting findings. So first of all we didn’t find a score that can outperform the other so we didn’t find a score that is significantly better than the other score. But overall we did find that the prediction of a stroke after a TIA based on the scores is really really poor. So it’s a little bit better than tossing a coin, which is, of course, as you understand, is not great. So what that calls for is for new scores. And we need to bring biomarkers, probably either imaging biomarkers or blood biomarkers to stratify better our patients. But more importantly, I think we need to prove that a score can actually make an impact on patients’ management and also preventing new strokes from happening.
This transcript is AI-generated. While we strive for accuracy, please verify this copy with the video.