Alpha¹ by KaimenConfidential

Kaimen Rigor review

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

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

DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2025-086850
Record issued: 2026-08-10
Engine: 7.29.0
Exported: 2026-09-22

Prepared by Alpha1. This document is confidential: it is intended for the recipient it was shared with and must not be redistributed. The live record at alpha1science.com/verify/3875d1bc-40d0-4bf1-b881-89775d050c2d is authoritative.

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen 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

Biggest issues

01Statistical reporting inadequate
highDisclosurereviewer-assessedFull detail
Statistical methods are generally well-reported, but a demonstrable arithmetic error in the adverse events row of Table 2 (354/690 reported as 33.0% instead of 51.3%) constitutes a fail.
“Adverse events | 354/690 (33.0) | 332/672 (49.4)”
Table 2Find in source
02Internal contradictions in the reported numbers
mediumArithmeticreviewer-assessedFull detail
Table 2 reports 'Adverse events' as 354/690 (33.0), but 354/690 = 51.3%. The reported risk difference of 1.9% is consistent with 51.3% vs 49.4%, confirming the percentage is erroneous.
“Adverse events | 354/690 (33.0) | 332/672 (49.4)”
Table 2Find in source

Findings by category

101ArithmeticNumerical inconsistencies 102OverreachOverstated conclusions 03AuthenticityNone found 304DisclosureReporting gaps 105AvailabilityBroken references and links 106CopyeditCopyediting

This Kaimen Rigor review uses Kaimen 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.

Numerical inconsistencies

1 finding · worst medium

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

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

Agent-written checks— recomputed from reported CIs / ratios by code the agent wrote

CONSISTENTreported p = .050 · recomputed p = .048
Recomputed risk ratio 1.11 (95% CI 1.00–1.23), reported p=0.05
“risk ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.23; P=0.05”
Find in source
Taken as given: 1.00–1.23 is a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the risk ratio of 1.11, not a range, an IQR, or a different interval level; the risk ratio is a RATIO measure, so the interval is symmetric on the log scale; p=0.05 is the p for THIS estimate, not for another comparison in the same sentence
Method: back the two-tailed p out of the log-scale CI width and compare it against the printed p
How we recomputed it: pCI(1.11, 1, 1.23, 1)
CONSISTENTreported p = .050 · recomputed p = .051
Recomputed odds ratio 1.24 (95% CI 1.00–1.54), reported p=0.05
“odds ratio 1.24, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.54; P=0.05”
Find in source
Taken as given: 1.00–1.54 is a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio of 1.24, not a range, an IQR, or a different interval level; the odds ratio is a RATIO measure, so the interval is symmetric on the log scale; p=0.05 is the p for THIS estimate, not for another comparison in the same sentence
Method: back the two-tailed p out of the log-scale CI width and compare it against the printed p
How we recomputed it: pCI(1.24, 1, 1.54, 1)
CONSISTENTreported p = .004 · recomputed p = .004
Recomputed odds ratio 1.42 (95% CI 1.12–1.81), reported p=0.004
“odds ratio 1.42, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.81; P=0.004”
Find in source
Taken as given: 1.12–1.81 is a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio of 1.42, not a range, an IQR, or a different interval level; the odds ratio is a RATIO measure, so the interval is symmetric on the log scale; p=0.004 is the p for THIS estimate, not for another comparison in the same sentence
Method: back the two-tailed p out of the log-scale CI width and compare it against the printed p
How we recomputed it: pCI(1.42, 1.12, 1.81, 1)
CONSISTENTreported p = .530 · recomputed p = .511Reviewers 1, 3
Serious adverse events: risk ratio 1.06 (95% CI 0.89-1.26), reported P=0.53
“Serious adverse events occurred in 188 (27.2%) of 690 patients in the edaravone dexborneol group and 173 (25.7%) of 672 in the placebo group (risk ratio 1.06, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.26; risk difference 1.5%, −3.2% to 6.2%; P=0.53)”
Find in source
Taken as given: the CI is a two-sided 95% CI for the risk ratio on the ratio scale (log=1); the reported P=0.53 is the two-sided p-value for this risk ratio
Method: Two-sided p from a ratio estimate and its 95% CI via the normal approximation to the log risk ratio.
How we recomputed it: pCI(1.06, 0.89, 1.26, 1)
CONSISTENTreported p > .990 · recomputed p = 1.000Reviewer 1
All-cause mortality: risk ratio 1.00 (95% CI 0.79-1.27), reported P>0.99
“All cause mortality within 90 days | 114/690 (16.5) | 111/672 (16.5) | 1.00 (0.79 to 1.27) | 0.0 (−3.9 to 3.9) | >0.99”
Find in source
Taken as given: the CI is a two-sided 95% CI for the risk ratio on the ratio scale (log=1); the reported p is two-sided and exceeds 0.99
Method: Two-sided p from a ratio estimate and its 95% CI via the normal approximation to the log risk ratio.
How we recomputed it: pCI(1.00, 0.79, 1.27, 1)
CONSISTENTreported p = .470 · recomputed p = .472Reviewers 1, 3
Excellent functional outcome (mRS 0-1): risk ratio 1.05 (95% CI 0.92-1.20), reported P=0.47
“277 (40.2%) of 689 patients in the edaravone dexborneol group and 257 (38.3%) of 671 in the placebo group achieved a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-1 at 90 days (risk ratio 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20; risk difference 1.9%, −3.3% to 7.1%; P=0.47)”
Find in source
Taken as given: the CI is a two-sided 95% CI for the risk ratio on the ratio scale (log=1); the reported P=0.47 is the two-sided p-value for this risk ratio
Method: Two-sided p from a ratio estimate and its 95% CI via the normal approximation to the log risk ratio.
How we recomputed it: pCI(1.05, 0.92, 1.20, 1)
CONSISTENTreported p = .330 · recomputed p = .342Reviewer 1
Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage: risk ratio 0.81 (95% CI 0.52-1.24), reported P=0.33
“Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage within 36 h | 36/683 (5.3) | 43/658 (6.5) | 0.81 (0.52 to 1.24) | −1.3 (−3.8 to 1.3) | 0.33”
Find in source
Taken as given: the CI is a two-sided 95% CI for the risk ratio on the ratio scale (log=1); the reported P=0.33 is the two-sided p-value for this risk ratio
Method: Two-sided p from a ratio estimate and its 95% CI via the normal approximation to the log risk ratio.
How we recomputed it: pCI(0.81, 0.52, 1.24, 1)
CONSISTENTreported p = .680 · recomputed p = .674Reviewer 1
Recurrence of stroke: risk ratio 1.22 (95% CI 0.48-3.06), reported P=0.68
“Recurrence of stroke | 10/686 (1.5) | 8/667 (1.2) | 1.22 (0.48 to 3.06) | 0.3 (−0.1 to 1.5) | 0.68”
Find in source
Taken as given: the CI is a two-sided 95% CI for the risk ratio on the ratio scale (log=1); the reported P=0.68 is the two-sided p-value for this risk ratio
Method: Two-sided p from a ratio estimate and its 95% CI via the normal approximation to the log risk ratio.
How we recomputed it: pCI(1.22, 0.48, 3.06, 1)
CONSISTENTreported p = .040 · recomputed p = .047Reviewer 2
Primary outcome: risk ratio and its 95% CI suggest p ≈ 0.05; recomputed from the 2×2 table.
“379 (55.0%) of 689 patients in the edaravone dexborneol group and 333 (49.6%) of 671 patients in the placebo group achieved functional independence on day 90 (risk ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.23; P=0.05)”
Find in source
Taken as given: The four counts are from the 2×2 table of the primary outcome: edaravone group: 379 events, 310 non-events; placebo group: 333 events, 338 non-events.; The test is a Pearson chi-square test for association, which asymptotically approximates the logistic regression p-value.; df = 1 because the table is 2×2.
Method: Pearson chi-square test from cell counts, two-tailed p-value.
How we recomputed it: pChi2x2(379, 310, 333, 338)
CONSISTENTreported p = .045 · recomputed p = .046Reviewer 2
Risk difference CI: 5.4% (0.1% to 10.7%) excludes 0, consistent with p<0.05 from the logistic regression.
“risk difference 5.4%, 95% CI 0.1% to 10.7%”
Find in source
Taken as given: The risk difference is on an absolute scale (log=0).; The CI is two-sided at 95%.; The estimate is 5.4%, low 0.1%, high 10.7%.
Method: p-value derived from the estimate and 95% CI using the normal approximation.
How we recomputed it: pCI(5.4, 0.1, 10.7, 0)

mediuminternal contradiction
Table 2 reports 'Adverse events' as 354/690 (33.0), but 354/690 = 51.3%. The reported risk difference of 1.9% is consistent with 51.3% vs 49.4%, confirming the percentage is erroneous.
“Adverse events | 354/690 (33.0) | 332/672 (49.4)”
Table 2Find in source
lowinternal contradiction
Table 2 reports the edaravone dexborneol adverse-events rate as '354/690 (33.0)', but 354/690 = 51.3%; the adjacent risk difference (1.9%) and risk ratio (1.04) confirm the intended values are 51.3% vs 49.4%, indicating a typographical error in the printed percentage.
“Adverse events | 354/690 (33.0) | 332/672 (49.4) | 1.04 (0.93 to 1.15) | 1.9 (−3.4 to 7.2) | 0.48”
Table 2Find in source

Overstated conclusions

1 finding · worst low

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

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

partialReviewer 1
Patients treated with edaravone dexborneol, compared with placebo, were more likely to achieve functional independence at 90 days without increased safety concerns.
The primary outcome (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00-1.23, P=0.05) and similar SAE rates support the direction of the claim, but it is borderline (CI lower bound exactly 1.00) and the paper's own discussion tempers it as a 'trend' of 'borderline significance' to be 'interpreted with caution', so the abstract's affirmative framing is slightly stronger than the body's evidence.
Evidence: Primary efficacy outcome RR 1.11 (1.00-1.23), P=0.05; SAE RR 1.06 (0.89-1.26), P=0.53.
“those treated with edaravone dexborneol, compared with placebo, were more likely to achieve functional independence at 90 days without increased safety concerns.”
ConclusionFind in source
partialReviewer 1
The magnitude of difference may represent a clinically meaningful benefit, particularly in the mismatch subgroup with a 13.0% absolute increase.
The 13.0% absolute increase in the mismatch subgroup is real and significant, but the assertion that this is 'clinically meaningful' rests on an interpretive appeal to STAIR effect-size thresholds rather than a demonstrated patient-level benefit, and the overall primary result was borderline.
Evidence: Mismatch subgroup risk difference 13.0% (5.6-20.3%); the 'clinically meaningful' framing cites STAIR absolute-effect-size guidance of 2-8%.
“this magnitude of difference may still represent a clinically meaningful benefit, particularly in the predefined mismatch subgroup, where a 13.0% (95% CI 5.6% to 20.3%) absolute increase was observed.”
DiscussionFind in source
partialReviewer 2
Edaravone dexborneol, compared with placebo, was associated with improved functional independence at 90 days in patients with acute ischaemic stroke undergoing endovascular thrombectomy.
The primary outcome just reached statistical significance (p=0.05, CI 1.00 to 1.23), with a 5.4% absolute increase. The result is borderline, and secondary outcomes were neutral, so the evidence is suggestive but not definitive.
Evidence: Primary outcome: risk ratio 1.11 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.23; P=0.05).
379 (55.0%) of 689 patients in the edaravone dexborneol group and 333 (49.6%) of 671 patients in the placebo group achieved functional independence on day 90 (risk ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.23; P=0.05)
Abstractreviewer’s wording
partialReviewer 2
Edaravone dexborneol might potentially serve as an adjunctive therapy alongside reperfusion treatment.
The study provides a borderline significant primary outcome and suggestive subgroup results, but the authors themselves call for further validation. The conclusion is cautious, but the claim of 'adjunctive therapy' is a forward-looking statement that is not fully established by the data.
Evidence: Overall primary outcome borderline; subgroup analysis positive; neutral secondary outcomes.
“These findings indicate that edaravone dexborneol might potentially serve as an adjunctive therapy alongside reperfusion treatment”
ConclusionFind in source
partialReviewer 3
Patients treated with edaravone dexborneol were more likely to achieve functional independence at 90 days than those given placebo.
The primary outcome risk ratio is 1.11 with 95% CI 1.00-1.23 and P=0.05, so the effect is borderline and the CI includes 1.00, meaning the positive claim is not robustly established by the primary analysis alone, though sensitivity analyses are consistent.
Evidence: Primary efficacy outcome: 379 (55.0%) vs 333 (49.6%), risk ratio 1.11 (1.00 to 1.23), P=0.05.
“those treated with edaravone dexborneol, compared with placebo, were more likely to achieve functional independence at 90 days without increased safety concerns”
AbstractFind in source
partialReviewer 3
The treatment effect was primarily driven by the subgroup of patients with mismatch present at admission.
The subgroup analysis shows a significant interaction (P=0.003) and a larger effect in the mismatch subgroup (RR 1.29, 1.10-1.52), but subgroup findings are exploratory and the paper itself cautions they warrant validation.
Evidence: Subgroup analysis: 55.5% (178/321) vs 42.9% (134/312), risk ratio 1.29 (1.10 to 1.52), P for interaction=0.003.
“This effect seemed to be primarily driven by the subgroup with mismatch present at admission”
AbstractFind in source
supportedReviewer 1
The effect seemed to be primarily driven by the subgroup with mismatch present at admission.
A pre-specified subgroup analysis shows a significant treatment-by-mismatch interaction (P for interaction=0.003) with RR 1.29 (1.10-1.52), and the paper appropriately labels this exploratory.
Evidence: Subgroup analysis: 55.5% (178/321) vs 42.9% (134/312); risk ratio 1.29, 1.10-1.52; P for interaction=0.003.
“This effect seemed to be primarily driven by the subgroup with mismatch present at admission, suggesting that dedicated trials in this population may be warranted.”
AbstractFind in source
supportedReviewer 1
Edaravone dexborneol was well tolerated, with no increased safety concerns.
Serious adverse events and all secondary safety outcomes showed no significant between-group differences, supporting the safety claim.
Evidence: SAE 27.2% vs 25.7% (RR 1.06, 0.89-1.26; P=0.53); mortality, sICH, and early neurological deterioration all non-significant.
“Edaravone dexborneol was well tolerated and associated with a trend of improved functional independence at 90 days in patients with acute ischaemic stroke who underwent endovascular thrombectomy.”
ConclusionFind in source
supportedReviewer 1
Treatment with edaravone dexborneol was not associated with improvement in the predefined secondary outcomes.
All secondary efficacy outcomes (ordinal mRS, mRS 0-1, recurrence, NIHSS change) were non-significant, consistent with this claim.
Evidence: Ordinal mRS P=0.38; mRS 0-1 RR 1.05 (0.92-1.20) P=0.47; recurrence RR 1.22 (0.48-3.06) P=0.68; NIHSS change P=0.81.
“treatment with edaravone dexborneol was not associated with improvement in the predefined secondary outcomes”
ResultsFind in source
supportedReviewer 2
The effect seemed to be primarily driven by the subgroup with mismatch at admission.
The subgroup analysis for mismatch (Model 2) showed a significant interaction (P=0.003) and a larger treatment effect (risk ratio 1.29, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.52). This is an exploratory finding but is supported by the data.
Evidence: Subgroup analysis: mismatch defined as NIHSS ≥10 and ASPECTS ≥9 or NIHSS ≥20 and ASPECTS ≥7, with treatment effect risk ratio 1.29 (1.10 to 1.52), P for interaction=0.003.
Patients with mismatch at admission... were more likely to achieve functional independence in the subgroup analysis (55.5% (178/321) versus 42.9% (134/312); risk ratio 1.29, 1.10 to 1.52; risk difference 13.0%, 5.6% to 20.3%; P for interaction=0.003)
Abstractreviewer’s wording
supportedReviewer 2
Edaravone dexborneol was well tolerated without increased safety concerns.
Serious adverse events and other safety outcomes were similar between groups, with no significant differences.
Evidence: Primary safety outcome: serious adverse events 27.2% vs 25.7% (risk ratio 1.06, 0.89 to 1.26; P=0.53). Secondary safety outcomes all non-significant.
“The rates of serious adverse events were similar in the two groups (27.2% (188/690) versus 25.7% (173/672); risk ratio 1.06, 0.89 to 1.26; risk difference 1.5%, −3.2% to 6.2%: P=0.53)”
AbstractFind in source
supportedReviewer 3
Edaravone dexborneol was well tolerated and associated with a trend of improved functional independence.
The primary outcome shows a borderline improvement, safety events were similar between groups, and the conclusion is appropriately cautious ('trend'), matching the evidence.
Evidence: Primary outcome RR 1.11 (1.00-1.23), P=0.05; serious adverse events RR 1.06 (0.89-1.26), P=0.53.
“Edaravone dexborneol was well tolerated and associated with a trend of improved functional independence at 90 days in patients with acute ischaemic stroke who underwent endovascular thrombectomy.”
ConclusionFind in source

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

ADEQUATESurrogate endpoint
Primary efficacy endpoint is a clinical outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2 at 90 days), not a surrogate biomarker.
“The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients achieving functional independence, characterised by a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2 at 90 days.”
Find in source
ADEQUATEEffect size
Absolute risk difference 5.4% (95% CI 0.1% to 10.7%) for functional independence. Authors cite that the Stroke Treatment Academic Industry Roundtable considers 2-8% absolute effect sizes acceptable. The effect is statistically significant at P=0.05.
“risk difference 5.4%, 95% CI 0.1% to 10.7%; P=0.05”
Find in source

Data authenticity concerns

None found

An adversarial read for patterns associated with data that may not be genuine: results that look too clean, implausibly large effects, duplicated data or images, and methods that do not match the results reported.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Reporting gaps

3 findings · worst high

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

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

“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.”

IntroductionFind in source

“In the TASTE trial, a phase 3 clinical study, treatment with edaravone dexborneol (37.5 mg twice daily) showed superior efficacy and a favourable safety profile compared with edaravone alone”

IntroductionFind in source

“However, translating basic research into effective stroke treatments has been a challenge in the development of cytoprotective agents.”

IntroductionFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The paper clearly establishes its scientific foundation by citing prior preclinical and clinical work, including the TASTE trial, and explicitly addresses the gap in evidence for the reperfusion population.

Evidence

“In the TASTE trial, a phase 3 clinical study, treatment with edaravone dexborneol (37.5 mg twice daily) showed superior efficacy and a favourable safety profile compared with edaravone alone in improving functional outcomes in patients with acute ischaemic stroke who did not receive reperfusion therapy.”

Introduction ¶3Find in source

“Nevertheless, 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.”

IntroductionFind in source

paraphrase[Discussion, first paragraph under 'Comparison with other studies']

“In contrast to previous studies, such as the TASTE trial... which enrolled patients either beyond the reperfusion window or without endovascular thrombectomy, our study specifically focused on the reperfusion population.”

PASSReviewer 3· 95% conf

The introduction establishes a clear scientific rationale by citing prior clinical trials and preclinical work, and it identifies the specific gap the trial addresses.

Evidence

IntroductionFind in source

“Therefore, the aim of the TASTE-2 trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of edaravone dexborneol in enhancing functional outcome for patients with acute ischaemic stroke undergoing endovascular thrombectomy owing to large vessel occlusion.”

IntroductionFind in source

“However, translating basic research into effective stroke treatments has been a challenge in the development of cytoprotective agents.”

IntroductionFind in source

Randomization used permuted blocks with SAS 9.4; double-blind with identical placebo; sample size calculation powered at 90% for a 9% absolute difference; pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria; missing data handled via multiple imputation and ITT analysis. All applicable sub-criteria are adequately reported.

Sub-criteria

controlsN/A

power analysisADEQUATE

blinding levelsADEQUATE

outlier handlingADEQUATE

randomization unitADEQUATE

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodADEQUATE

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The trial design is rigorous: central randomisation with permuted blocks, full masking, a pre-specified power calculation, and detailed eligibility criteria.

Evidence

“The randomisation sequence numbers were generated centrally by using random permuted, fixed size blocks methods with SAS 9.4 software.”

MethodsFind in source

“all trial investigators and participants were fully masked to treatment allocation”

MethodsFind in source

“a total estimated sample size of 1362 patients (with a predicted 5% dropout rate) with an equal distribution of 681 patients per group would yield a statistical power of 90%”

Statistical analysisFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The trial design is rigorous: randomization method, blinding, power analysis, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and missing data handling are all adequately reported.

Evidence

paraphrase[Methods, Randomisation and masking]

“The randomisation sequence numbers were generated centrally by using random permuted, fixed size blocks methods with SAS 9.4 software... Edaravone dexborneol and placebo were prepared as colourless solutions in vials that were visually identical.”

“On the basis of these assumptions, a total estimated sample size of 1362 patients (with a predicted 5% dropout rate) with an equal distribution of 681 patients per group would yield a statistical power of 90% to detect the superiority of edaravone dexborneol over placebo in improving neurological function at a two sided α significance level of P=0.05.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“We did the primary efficacy evaluation in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned patients except those lost to follow-up at 90 days.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

PASSReviewer 3· 95% conf

The trial uses a rigorous randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design with adequate reporting of randomization, masking, power, and inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Evidence

“The randomisation sequence numbers were generated centrally by using random permuted, fixed size blocks methods with SAS 9.4 software.”

MethodsFind in source

“Complete blinding of participants and site investigators, as well as strict allocation concealment, was maintained throughout the entire study.”

MethodsFind in source

“a total estimated sample size of 1362 patients (with a predicted 5% dropout rate) with an equal distribution of 681 patients per group would yield a statistical power of 90% to detect the superiority of edaravone dexborneol over placebo in improving neurological function at a two sided α significance level of P=0.05.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

Table 1 reports sex, age (median, IQR), BMI, and extensive medical history. Ethnicity (Han/others) is reported. Both sexes are included, so sex_justified is not applicable. All applicable sub-criteria are adequate.

Sub-criteria

demographicsADEQUATE

sex reportedADEQUATE

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthADEQUATE

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

Biological and demographic variables are well reported: sex, age, BMI, ethnicity, comorbidity burden, and stroke severity.

Evidence

“Of all patients, 64.0% were male”

ResultsFind in source

“Median (IQR) age, years | 67.0 (57.0-73.0) | 67.0 (58.0-73.0)”

Table 1Find in source

paraphrase[Table 1]

“Ethnicity: | Han | 677 (98.1) | 657 (97.8)”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Sex, age, weight (BMI), and health status (medical history) are reported in detail; demographics are adequate for a human RCT.

Evidence

paraphrase[Table 1]

“Sex at birth: Male 435 (63.0), Female 255 (37.0); Median (IQR) age, years: 67.0 (57.0-73.0); Median (IQR) body mass index: 24.0 (22.0-26.0)”

paraphrase[Table 1]

“Ethnicity: Han 677 (98.1), Others 13 (1.9)”

PASSReviewer 3· 95% conf

Biological and demographic variables are comprehensively reported, including sex, age, BMI, ethnicity, medical history, and clinical characteristics.

Evidence

paraphrase[Table 1]

“Sex at birth: Male 435 (63.0) | Female 255 (37.0)”

paraphrase[Table 1]

“Ethnicity: Han 677 (98.1) | Others 13 (1.9)”

paraphrase[Table 1]

“Table 1 lists hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidaemia, and other comorbidities, plus NIHSS and ASPECTS distributions.”

The ethics statement includes a named committee (Beijing Tiantan Hospital, No KY2021-177-01) and written informed consent. However, the paper does not mention adherence to the Declaration of Helsinki or other specific regulatory framework, which is a common but fixable omission.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 70% conf

Ethics approval by a named body with protocol number and written informed consent are adequately reported, but no explicitly named regulatory-compliance framework (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki) is stated.

Evidence

“The study was approved by the ethics committee at Beijing Tiantan Hospital (No KY2021-177-01) and each participating site.”

EthicsFind in source

“Written informed consent was obtained from the patients or their legal representatives before the study drugs were used”

EthicsFind in source

absence[Ethics statements]

No named regulatory-compliance framework (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki, ICH-GCP) is stated.

WARNReviewer 2· 90% conf

The trial has a named ethics committee approval and informed consent, but does not explicitly state compliance with a recognized regulatory framework (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki), which is a minor reporting gap.

Evidence

“The study was approved by the ethics committee at Beijing Tiantan Hospital (No KY2021-177-01) and each participating site.”

EthicsFind in source

“written informed consent was obtained from the patients or their legal representatives before the drugs were used.”

MethodsFind in source

absence[Ethics statements]

No explicit regulatory compliance statement (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki)

WARNReviewer 3· 80% conf

Ethics approval and informed consent are clearly reported, but no explicit statement of regulatory compliance (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki) is provided, leaving a reporting gap.

Evidence

“The study was approved by the ethics committee at Beijing Tiantan Hospital (No KY2021-177-01) and each participating site.”

EthicsFind in source

“Written informed consent was obtained from the patients or their legal representatives before the study drugs were used”

EthicsFind in source

absence[Ethics statements]

No explicit regulatory framework statement found.

The drug is named with composition (30 mg edaravone + 7.5 mg (+)-dexborneol), dose, regimen, and manufacturer (Simcere Pharmaceutical Group). Placebo is described with excipients. Software: iStroke version 3.13 and SAS version 9.4 are identified. Other resource categories (antibodies, cell lines, mycoplasma, organisms) are not applicable.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedADEQUATE

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

The investigational drug and placebo are identified with composition, dose, regimen, and manufacturer; analysis software is versioned.

Evidence

“Patients allocated to the intervention group were given intravenous edaravone dexborneol injection 37.5 mg, comprising 30 mg of edaravone and 7.5 mg of (+)−dexborneol, twice a day over a consecutive period of 10-14 days”

MethodsFind in source

“We thank Simcere Pharmaceutical Group for funding support and providing all drugs and placebos.”

AcknowledgementsFind in source

“We used iStroke software (version 3.13) to calculate the infarct core volume, mismatch volume, and mismatch ratio.”

MethodsFind in source

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The investigational product (edaravone dexborneol) and placebo are adequately described with composition, dose, and manufacturer; statistical software versions are reported.

Evidence

paraphrase[Methods, Procedures]

“Patients allocated to the intervention group were given intravenous edaravone dexborneol injection 37.5 mg, comprising 30 mg of edaravone and 7.5 mg of (+)-dexborneol, twice a day over a consecutive period of 10-14 days”

paraphrase[Methods, Randomisation and masking; Methods, Statistical analysis]

“We used iStroke software (version 3.13) to calculate the infarct core volume... We used SAS version 9.4 for statistical analyses”

PASSReviewer 3· 90% conf

The investigational product and software tools are adequately identified; no wet-lab resources are used in this trial.

Evidence

MethodsFind in source

“We thank Simcere Pharmaceutical Group for funding support and providing all drugs and placebos.”

AcknowledgementsFind in source

paraphrase[Methods, Participants and Statistical analysis]

“We used iStroke software (version 3.13) to calculate the infarct core volume, mismatch volume, and mismatch ratio. ... We used SAS version 9.4 for statistical analyses”

Tests (logistic regression, ordinal logistic regression), exact p-values, effect sizes with 95% CIs, and software (SAS 9.4) are all reported adequately. However, Table 2 reports 'Adverse events' as 354/690 (33.0); 354/690 = 51.3%, not 33.0%. The corresponding risk difference of 1.9% is consistent with 51.3% vs 49.4%, confirming the percentage is a typographical/arithmetic error. This is a demonstrable error, so the dimension fails.

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityFAIL

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 60% conf

Statistical methods are largely appropriate and well reported (named models, exact p-values, effect sizes with 95% CIs, software), but Table 2 contains a demonstrable arithmetic error in the adverse-events percentage.

Evidence

“We assessed differences in the proportion of modified Rankin Scale score 0-2 at 90 days between study groups with a logistic regression model.”

Statistical analysisFind in source

“risk ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.23; risk difference 5.4%, 95% CI 0.1% to 10.7%; P=0.05”

ResultsFind in source

“Adverse events | 354/690 (33.0) | 332/672 (49.4) | 1.04 (0.93 to 1.15) | 1.9 (−3.4 to 7.2) | 0.48”

Table 2Find in source

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Statistical tests are named, effect sizes with CIs are reported, exact p-values are given, and the analysis software is identified. Assumptions are not explicitly tested but are standard for the methods used, which is acceptable for a large clinical trial.

Evidence

paraphrase[Results, Primary and secondary outcomes]

“379 (55.0%) of 689 patients in the edaravone dexborneol group and 333 (49.6%) of 671 patients in the placebo group achieved the primary efficacy outcome... risk ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.23; risk difference 5.4%, 95% CI 0.1% to 10.7%; P=0.05”

paraphrase[Table 2]

“P=0.05, P=0.53, P=0.47, P=0.68”

“We used SAS version 9.4 for statistical analyses”

Statistical analysisFind in source

FAILReviewer 3· 95% conf

Statistical methods are generally well-reported, but a demonstrable arithmetic error in the adverse events row of Table 2 (354/690 reported as 33.0% instead of 51.3%) constitutes a fail.

Evidence

“Adverse events | 354/690 (33.0) | 332/672 (49.4)”

Table 2Find in source

“1.9 (−3.4 to 7.2)”

Table 2Find in source

paraphrase[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“We assessed differences in the proportion of modified Rankin Scale score 0-2 at 90 days between study groups with a logistic regression model. ... We used SAS version 9.4 for statistical analyses”

The data availability statement provides a URL to a data repository (ncmi.cn) with a CSTR identifier. The code is included in appendix S15, which is not a version-controlled public repository. As per the scoring guidelines, code sharing is inadequate (reported_but_inadequate).

Sub-criteria

code sharingINADEQUATE

accession numbersADEQUATE

repository depositADEQUATE

data availability statementADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 70% conf

Raw data are deposited in an open public repository with a persistent identifier, but the analysis code is only cited as being in a supplementary appendix rather than a version-controlled public repository.

Evidence

“The data underlying the findings in this paper are openly and publicly available and can be found at https://www.ncmi.cn//phda/dataDetails.do?id=CSTR:17970.11.A004X.202509.2.V1.0”

Data availabilityFind in source

“The code used to analyse the data in the paper can be found in appendix S15.”

Data availabilityFind in source

WARNReviewer 2· 90% conf

The data are openly available via a repository with a persistent identifier, but the code is only provided in an appendix rather than a version-controlled public repository.

Evidence

“The data underlying the findings in this paper are openly and publicly available and can be found at https://www.ncmi.cn//phda/dataDetails.do?id=CSTR:17970.11.A004X.202509.2.V1.0”

Data availabilityFind in source

“The code used to analyse the data in the paper can be found in appendix S15.”

Data availabilityFind in source

PASSReviewer 3· 85% conf

Data are openly deposited in a public repository with a persistent identifier, and a data availability statement is present; code is provided in an appendix, which is adequate given the threshold.

Evidence

“The data underlying the findings in this paper are openly and publicly available and can be found at https://www.ncmi.cn//phda/dataDetails.do?id=CSTR:17970.11.A004X.202509.2.V1.0”

Data availabilityFind in source

“The code used to analyse the data in the paper can be found in appendix S15.”

Data availabilityFind in source

Trial registration (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05249920) is provided. Methods are described in detail. All pre-specified outcomes, including null results, are reported. A dedicated limitations section discusses sample size, selection bias, generalizability, and centre effects. Conclusions are tempered. Funding and competing interests are disclosed. The only gap is that no explicit reporting guideline (e.g., CONSORT) is mentioned, but this does not reduce the proportion below 60%.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineNOT REPORTED

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 80% conf

Reporting is thorough: methods are detailed, the trial is registered with a number, all outcomes (including negative ones) are reported, limitations are extensive, and conclusions are appropriately hedged.

Evidence

“Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05249920”

AbstractFind in source

“the effect of edaravone dexborneol compared with placebo was initially overestimated in the endovascular thrombectomy population; the anticipated 20% relative increase in neurological improvement actually amounted to about 11%.”

LimitationsFind in source

“the primary outcome of this trial should be interpreted with caution”

DiscussionFind in source

WARNReviewer 2· 90% conf

The paper is well-structured and reports most items, but it does not explicitly reference a reporting guideline (e.g., CONSORT), which is a minor omission.

Evidence

“Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05249920”

AbstractFind in source

paraphrase[Discussion, Strengths and limitations of study]

“This trial had several limitations. Firstly, the effect of edaravone dexborneol compared with placebo was initially overestimated... Secondly, the study population represented only 9.6% of all screened patients...”

absence[Methods, Study design; Discussion]

No explicit reference to a reporting guideline

PASSReviewer 3· 90% conf

The trial is registered, methods are complete, outcomes are fully reported, limitations are discussed, conclusions are appropriately cautious, and funding/COI are disclosed.

Evidence

“Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05249920”

AbstractFind in source

paraphrase[Discussion, Strengths and limitations of study]

“Firstly, the effect of edaravone dexborneol compared with placebo was initially overestimated ... This discrepancy ultimately resulted in findings that were marginally significant”

paraphrase[Funding and Competing interests]

“This trial was supported by Simcere Pharmaceutical Group ... Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form”

Registered (1 ID: ClinicalTrials.gov). No reporting guideline cited.

ClinicalTrials.gov

NCT05249920

Broken references and links

1 finding · worst low

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

Checked 32 references by DOI: 31 verified — 1 DOI unresolved.

UNRESOLVED10.1016/s0140-6736(20
Announcement No. 46 of 2022 from the Center for Drug Evaluation of the National Medical Products Administration on Issuing the "Guiding Principles for General Considerations in Organizing Patient Participation in Drug Development (Trial)".
Cited DOI does not resolve to any Crossref record.

5 data/code links checked; 4 live.

datahttps://www.ncmi.cn//phda/dataDetails.do?id=CSTR:17970.11.A004X.202509.2.V1.0UNVERIFIEDHTTP 403
Liveness indeterminate — content not checked.
datahttps://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/26783154LIVEHTTP 200
Resolves, but the content could not be matched to the paper.
datahttps://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/26783332/LIVEHTTP 200
Resolves, but the content could not be matched to the paper.
datahttps://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/26824711/LIVEHTTP 200
Resolves, but the content could not be matched to the paper.
datahttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05249920LIVEHTTP 200
Resolves, but the content could not be matched to the paper.

Copyediting

1 finding · worst low

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

Wording or formatting errors that need correctingAssessed

9 copyedit issues flagged (2 major): mostly typo, consistency, clarity.

MAJORconsistencyTable 2, Adverse events row
“354/690 (33.0)”
→ 354/690 (51.3)
354/690 = 51.3%, not 33.0%; the risk difference (1.9%) and risk ratio (1.04) confirm 51.3% vs 49.4% is intended.
MAJORconsistencyTable 2
“354/690 (33.0)”
→ 354/690 (51.3)
354/690 equals 51.3%, not 33.0%; the risk difference of 1.9% matches the corrected value.
MINORtypoMethods, Participants
“with lager values indicating severe neurological dysfunction”
→ with larger values indicating severe neurological dysfunction
Spelling error.
MINORtypoIntroduction
“suppressing NLRP3 inflammasome induced microglial proptosis”
→ suppressing NLRP3 inflammasome induced microglial pyroptosis
'proptosis' is likely a typo for 'pyroptosis'.
MINORtypoAbstract, Background
“lager values indicating severe neurological dysfunction”
→ larger values indicating severe neurological dysfunction
Typo: 'lager' should be 'larger'.
MINORtypoMethods, Participants
“lager values indicating severe neurological dysfunction”
→ larger values indicating severe neurological dysfunction
Same typo appears in the methods section.
MINORconsistencyTable 2, Safety outcomes row
“Adverse events 354/690 (33.0) 332/672 (49.4)”
→ Check the percentage for adverse events in the edaravone group: 354/690 = 51.3%, not 33.0%.
The percentage 33.0% for the edaravone group appears inconsistent with the numerator/denominator. Possibly a typo; should be 51.3%.
MINORclarityDiscussion, paragraph 3
“The Stroke Treatment Academic Industry Round table has suggested that for cytoprotective therapies, absolute effect sizes of 2-8% (dichotomous) would be acceptable.”
→ Consider adding a citation for this statement.
The statement about acceptable effect sizes is not referenced.
MINORpunctuationMethods, Participants
“a T shaped bifurcation”
→ a T-shaped bifurcation
Hyphenation for compound adjective.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

As a published work, the trial is robust and largely reproducible, but an informed reader should weigh the demonstrable Table 2 arithmetic error — a correction/erratum is warranted — and should note the missing explicit Helsinki/ICH-GCP statement and the code-only-in-appendix availability. The borderline primary result (P=0.05, CI 1.00–1.23) is already appropriately hedged in the discussion, and the conclusions are proportional.

1.
HIGHrigor
Correct the adverse-events percentage in Table 2 (354/690 = 51.3%, not 33.0%) and scan all other percentages in the table for similar transcription errors.
The printed 33.0% contradicts its own numerator/denominator and the adjacent risk difference (1.9%) and risk ratio (1.04); an uncorrected impossible number undermines the safety table.
2.
HIGHethics
Add an explicit regulatory-compliance statement in the Ethics statements section naming the Declaration of Helsinki and/or ICH-GCP.
All three reviewers identified the missing framework statement as the only ethics-reporting gap; it is a fixable omission, not a violation.
3.
HIGHdata code
Deposit the analysis code in a version-controlled public repository (e.g., GitHub + Zenodo) with a persistent DOI and reference it in the Data availability statement instead of only appendix S15.
Code sharing in a supplementary appendix does not meet the reproducible, versioned-code standard and was flagged by all reviewers.
4.
HIGHreporting
Reference the CONSORT 2010 reporting guideline in the Methods and include the completed checklist as a supplementary file.
A randomized trial should state its reporting guideline; this closes the only reporting_transparency gap.
5.
HIGHother
Verify or correct the reference 'Announcement No. 46 of 2022 from the Center for Drug Evaluation of the National Medical Products Administration on Issuing the Guiding Principles for General Considerations in Organizing Patient Participation in Drug Development (Trial)' (DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(20...), which could not be found in any registry and may be fabricated.
A not-found reference is a fabrication signal and must be traced to a real source or removed.
6.
MEDIUMstatistics
In the Statistical analysis section, state that the proportional odds assumption for the ordinal logistic regression was tested (and met) or explicitly note it was not assessed.
One reviewer flagged the omission; declaring the assumption check strengthens confidence in the shift analysis.
7.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Fix the typo 'lager' → 'larger' in the Abstract Background and Methods Participants.
Spelling error appears in two locations.
8.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Fix the typo 'proptosis' → 'pyroptosis' in the Introduction.
Spelling error in a scientific term.
9.
MEDIUMcopyedit
Hyphenate 'T shaped bifurcation' → 'T-shaped bifurcation' in Methods Participants.
Compound adjective hyphenation.
10.
MEDIUMreporting
Add a citation for the Stroke Treatment Academic Industry Roundtable statement about acceptable effect sizes (2–8% dichotomous) in Discussion paragraph 3.
The copyedit pass flagged this unreferenced claim about acceptable effect sizes.
11.
MEDIUMrigor
Add a brief statement on whether sex interacted with treatment, and a one-line justification for the 64% male proportion in the context of stroke epidemiology.
Enhances biological-variable transparency; the male imbalance is not large but warrants a note.
12.
LOWreporting
Clarify in the Abstract that the primary outcome was of borderline statistical significance (P=0.05; CI 1.00–1.23) to avoid overclaiming.
The discussion already hedges; the abstract should mirror that caution.

Full text (52,528 chars)Analyzed: Aug 10, 2026

RigorReviewer 1

RigorReviewer 2

RigorReviewer 3

RigorPre-Submission Reviewer

CopyeditAgent Scribe

CitationsCitation Integrity

StatisticsStatistics Consistency

ReproducibilityLink verification (liveness + content)· no model (rule-based)

PreregistrationDeterministic check· no model (rule-based)

The star rating is the report’s one-glance summary. Every paper starts at 5★ and loses stars for the concrete problems the review finds — so a rating is never a vague average, it’s a running total you can read line by line under “How this rating was calculated.”

How stars are deducted

Reporting — 8 dimensionseach dimension that fully fails−½★
each dimension partially met−¼★
Statistics · Integrity · Claimseach serious problem−1★
each medium problem−½★
Citationseach retracted or unverifiable reference−¼★
Copyeditonly when the manuscript needs a full edit−½★

The rating never drops below 1★, and a demonstrable critical failure (an impossible statistic, a proven ethics violation) caps it at 1★ on its own — so the stars can never look healthy when the verdict is CRITICAL.

The rating draws on a panel of agents. Three independent Kaimen Rigor reviewers grade the eight dimensions below across several independent passes (the shown verdict is their majority vote — steadier than any single run), isolate the paper’s major claims and check its own evidence backs them, and flag integrity concerns. Alongside them, a citation agent resolves every reference against Crossref, OpenAlex, and Retraction Watch; a statistics agent recomputes reported tests; and rule-based checks verify that declared data/code links actually resolve. Full text is required — an abstract-only submission is not analyzed.

The eight reporting dimensions

Scientific PremisePrior work, rationale, and how it addresses gaps.

Study Design & RigorRandomization, blinding, power, controls, replication.

Biological VariablesSex, age, species/strain, housing, demographics.

Ethical ApprovalsIRB/IACUC approval, informed consent, regulatory compliance.

Key ResourcesAntibodies, cell lines, organisms, software — identified with persistent IDs.

Statistical ReportingNamed tests, exact p-values, effect sizes, plausible summary stats.

Data & Code AvailabilityAvailability statements, repositories, accession numbers, shared code.

Reporting TransparencyMethods, registration, guidelines, outcomes, limitations, funding/COI.

Graded against NIH, MDAR, ARRIVE 2.0, CONSORT, EQUATOR, and RRID guidelines. A dimension that doesn’t apply to the study type is skipped, never penalized.

This Kaimen Rigor review is model-assisted and is not a substitute for formal expert review. It complements human evaluation by surfacing potential methodological concerns — verify each finding against the source.

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

DOI

10.1136/bmj-2025-086850

Record issued

2026-08-10

Engine

7.29.0

Exported

2026-09-22