English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

To the Editor:Drs Sandercock and Lewis remind us of some of the very real hazards of subgroup analysis. Performing multiple “one-variable-at-time” subgroup analyses will inevitably yield spurious results.1,2 This problem of spurious false-positive results, however, is not one that is directly addressed by increased sample size or statistical power, as they imply. Further, they seem to argue that the proper response to the risk of spurious false-positive results is to cease all analyses on variation in the effect of thrombolysis in stroke until the IST-3 Trial is completed. We respectfully disagree.Although multiple “one-variable-at a-time” subgroup analyses may sometimes yield misleading results, for treatments with both risks and benefits such as recombinant tissue plasminogen activator for stroke, reporting only the summary result is also likely to be misleading, because the …

Differences in Response to Reperfusion Therapies in Acute Stroke Between Men and Women: Mediated by Sex or by Chance?