Rigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Edaravone dexborneol versus placebo on functional outcomes in patients with acute ischaemic stroke undergoing endovascular thrombectomy (TASTE-2): randomised controlled trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Edaravone dexborneol versus placebo on functional outcomes in patients with acute ischaemic stroke undergoing endovascular thrombectomy (TASTE-2): randomised controlled trial.
Item: Edaravone dexborneol versus placebo on functional outcomes in patients with acute ischaemic stroke undergoing endovascular thrombectomy (TASTE-2): randomised controlled trial.
Rating: 59
Author: Αlpha¹

Wang C, Gu H, Huo X, Yuan B, Li S, Xu J, Jiang Y, Jing J, Yao X, Li Z, Long F, Ma Z, Zhuang X, Xu L, Jin Y, Huang W, Zhang Y, Wen J, Wang A, Pan Y, Ye W, Yu W, Cheng A, Wang M, Dong Q, Xu A, Wang N, Yang Y, Meng X, Liu L, Zhao X, Li H, Miao Z, Li Z, Wang Y, TASTE-2 investigators

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 2.75★ (Weak), 0 critical, 5 high issues for “Edaravone dexborneol versus placebo on functional outcomes in patients with acute ischaemic stroke undergoing endovascular thrombectomy (TASTE-2): randomised controlled trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 10, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

2.75 / 5

Weak — serious problems found

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×2−1★
ReportingStatistical analysis not met−0.5★
ReportingEthical approvals partially met−0.25★
ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★
CitationsUnresolved reference−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: moderateEngine: 7.29.0Source: full text

Problems surfaced7 types

Numerical inconsistencies1

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Overstated conclusions1

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

Reporting gaps3

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Statistical reporting inadequateAssessed
Data/code availability incompleteAssessed
Ethics/consent reporting incompleteAssessed

Broken references and links1

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

References not resolvable to a published paperRecomputed

Copyediting1

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

Wording or formatting errors that need correctingAssessed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

The TASTE-2 trial is methodologically rigorous: a registered, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled phase 3 trial with a sound scientific premise, well-reported design, demographics, ethics approval, key resources, and thorough reporting transparency. The main weakness is a demonstrable arithmetic error in the Table 2 adverse-events percentage (354/690 printed as 33.0% instead of 51.3%), which warrants a correction, alongside minor reporting gaps (missing Helsinki/ICH-GCP statement, code only in an appendix, no CONSORT reference).

All three independent reviewers evaluated the full text; they converged on 6 of 8 dimensions. The two divergences were resolved by weighing evidence: statistical analysis (R2 passed, missing the error; R1/R3 and copyedit/integrity confirmed it → fail) and data code availability (R3's pass mis-counted not-applicable accession numbers as adequate → warn). Sub-criteria not applicable to a human RCT (replicates, controls, independent replication, species/housing, sequencing accession numbers) were excluded. The statistics verification recomputed 10 reported tests consistently but does not cover the Table 2 fraction check.

12 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

Efficacy claim is anchored to an adequate endpoint and a meaningful effect.

Recomputed 10 tests: 10 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 3 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 7 via agent-written checks.

2 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions5 pass · 2 warn · 1 fail

The introduction cites the TASTE trial, preclinical studies on edaravone dexborneol, and Stroke Treatment Academic Industry Roundtable recommendations. It acknowledges limitations of prior research (e.g., lack of data in patients receiving reperfusion therapy) and provides a logical rationale for the study hypothesis.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The scientific foundation is well established via prior phase 3 trials and preclinical work, with a clear rationale for testing the drug in the reperfusion population.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction]

“whether edaravone dexborneol confers additional cytoprotective benefits in patients undergoing reperfusion therapy—a population that may derive the greatest potential benefit from cytoprotective agents—remains uncertain.”