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: Adcurare 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: 100
Author: Adcurare

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)Journal

Embed this Rigor badge

Adcurare Rigor Review — 4★ (Strong), 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.

Adcurare Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Adcurare Editorial · July 7, 2026

Adcurare Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

4 / 5

Strong — minor issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×2−1★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: moderateEngine: 7.6.0Source: full text

Problems surfaced2 types

Data look implausibly clean
Internal contradictions in the reported numbers

This Adcurare 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.

This is a well-designed and reported phase 3 RCT with clear rationale, rigorous randomisation and blinding, and good data sharing. The main weaknesses are the lack of an explicit statement of compliance with a regulatory framework, the absence of reported statistical assumption checks, imprecise p-value reporting, code in a static appendix rather than a version-controlled repository, and an internal contradiction in the adverse events percentage in Table 2.

Evaluated 8 dimensions from 3 independent reviewer reports, a copyedit pass, and verification components (citation, statistics, reproducibility, preregistration, integrity, claim audit). The statistics verification component re-computed 11 tests from reported test statistics and CIs; all were consistent, but coverage is limited to those reported with sufficient detail. The citation check found no retracted or unlocatable references. The integrity check flagged an internal contradiction in Table 2 (adverse event percentage) and a note about the very high recanalisation rate potentially reflecting selection bias.

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

Recomputed 11 tests: 11 consistent, 0 inconsistent, 11 via agent-written checks.

2 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The introduction cites the Stroke Treatment Academic Industry Round table recommendations, the TASTE phase 3 trial, and preclinical studies on edaravone dexborneol. It notes that prior cytoprotective agents have had translational failures and that the effect in patients undergoing reperfusion therapy was unknown, thereby establishing a clear gap. Limitations of prior work (e.g., TASTE trial excluded reperfusion patients) are explicitly addressed as the motivation for TASTE-2.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The paper clearly establishes the scientific premise by citing prior preclinical and clinical work, providing a logical rationale, and acknowledging limitations of prior research.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraphs 2-3]

“Edaravone dexborneol, a compound consisting of edaravone and (+)-borneol in a four-to-one ratio, has been investigated in animal models and identified as an innovative multitarget brain cytoprotective agent owing to its synergistic antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects in preclinical studies.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 4]

“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.”

paraphrase[Discussion, paragraph 1]

“The paper notes that the TASTE trial enrolled patients who did not receive reperfusion therapy, limiting its generalisability, which TASTE-2 aims to address.”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The scientific premise is well-established with clear citations of prior research, a logical rationale, and acknowledgment of limitations of prior work.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“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.”

direct quote[Introduction, last sentence]

“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.”

paraphrase[Discussion, paragraph 2]

“The paper notes that the TASTE trial enrolled patients without reperfusion therapy, limiting generalizability to current reperfusion practice.”

PASSReviewer 3· 95% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise by citing prior preclinical and clinical research on edaravone dexborneol, explaining the rationale for the study, and noting limitations of prior work that the trial aims to address.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 4]

direct quote[Discussion, paragraph 1]

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

Randomisation was central with fixed-size blocks (SAS 9.4), and allocation concealment used identical vials sequentially labelled. Blinding of participants, investigators, and outcome assessors was maintained. An a priori power analysis (90% power, α=0.05) estimated 1362 patients. Inclusion/exclusion criteria are explicitly listed, and outliers are handled via the pre-specified intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. PRISMA-style flow diagram tracks all patients. Controls are adequate (identical placebo).

Sub-criteria

controlsADEQUATE

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· 95% conf

The study design is rigorous and well-reported, with appropriate randomisation, blinding, power analysis, and pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Randomisation and masking]

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

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“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.”

direct quote[Methods, Randomisation and masking]

“Edaravone dexborneol and placebo were prepared as colourless solutions in vials that were visually identical.”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The study design is rigorous with clear randomization, blinding, sample size calculation, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and pre-specified analysis populations.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Randomisation and masking, paragraph 1]

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

direct quote[Methods, Randomisation and masking, paragraph 2]

“Edaravone dexborneol and placebo were prepared as colourless solutions in vials that were visually identical.”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis, paragraph 1]

“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.”

PASSReviewer 3· 90% conf

The study design is rigorous for a human RCT: randomisation, blinding, sample size calculation, and inclusion/exclusion criteria are all adequately reported. Outlier handling and replicate distinction are not applicable for this human trial design. Independent replication is not applicable for a single pivotal trial, but the trial is registered and the protocol is referenced.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Randomisation and masking]

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

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

direct quote[Methods, Participants]

“We considered patients meeting the following criteria to be eligible for participation in this trial: age between 18 and 80 years; a diagnosis of acute ischaemic stroke; ...”

Sex is reported (64.0% male). Age is reported (median 67 years, IQR). Ethnicity (Han Chinese vs. other), body mass index, and detailed medical history are all tabulated. Species/strain and housing conditions are not applicable as this is a human trial.

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· 95% conf

Demographics (age, sex, ethnicity, BMI, medical history) are comprehensively reported in Table 1.

Evidence

direct quote[Results, Table 1]

“Sex at birth: Male 435 (63.0) [edaravone group]... Female 255 (37.0)... Median (IQR) age, years 67.0 (57.0-73.0)”

direct quote[Results, Table 1]

“Ethnicity: Han 677 (98.1)... Others 13 (1.9)... Medical history: Hypertension 398 (57.7)... Diabetes 130 (18.8)...”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Biological variables (sex, age, demographics) are comprehensively reported in Table 1.

Evidence

direct quote[Table 1]

“Male: 435 (63.0%) / 436 (64.9%)”

paraphrase[Table 1]

“Table 1 includes median age, BMI, ethnicity, medical history, medication history, and clinical characteristics for both groups.”

PASSReviewer 3· 95% conf

Sex, age, weight (BMI), and health status are reported for the human study population. Demographics are also reported. Species/strain and housing conditions are not applicable because this is a human clinical trial.

Evidence

direct quote[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)”

direct quote[Table 1]

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

direct quote[Results, paragraph 1]

“Of all patients, 64.0% were male”

The study was approved by the ethics committee at Beijing Tiantan Hospital (No KY2021-177-01) and each participating site. Written informed consent was obtained. Compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki is implicitly referenced through the ethics process and the trial registration. The data and safety monitoring board is mentioned.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentADEQUATE

irb ethics statementADEQUATE

regulatory complianceADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

Ethical approval from a named committee and informed consent are clearly reported, along with regulatory compliance statements.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Study design, and Ethics statements]

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

direct quote[Methods, Study design]

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

WARNReviewer 2· 85% conf

Ethics approval and informed consent are adequately reported, but the regulatory compliance statement does not explicitly name a recognized framework like the Declaration of Helsinki.

Evidence

direct quote[Ethics statements, paragraph 1]

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

direct quote[Ethics statements, paragraph 1]

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

absence[Ethics statements]

No explicit mention of regulatory framework like Declaration of Helsinki.

PASSReviewer 3· 95% conf

Ethical approval is reported with a named ethics committee and protocol number. Informed consent was obtained. Compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki is implied, and the study was registered (NCT05249920).

Evidence

direct quote[Ethics statements]

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

direct quote[Methods, Study design]

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

direct quote[Abstract, Trial registration]

“Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05249920”

The investigational product is edaravone dexborneol 37.5 mg (edaravone 30 mg + (+)-dexborneol 7.5 mg), provided by Simcere Pharmaceutical Group. The placebo composition is described (excipients without actives). iStroke software version 3.13 is named. SAS version 9.4 is identified for statistical analysis. Antibodies, cell lines, and 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· 95% conf

The investigational drug (edaravone dexborneol) and placebo are identified with formulation details; the placebo composition is described; iStroke software is identified with version.

Evidence

direct quote[Abstract and Methods, Procedures]

“intravenous edaravone dexborneol injection 37.5 mg, comprising 30 mg of edaravone and 7.5 mg of (+)-dexborneol”

direct quote[Methods, Participants]

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

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“We used SAS version 9.4 for statistical analyses”

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

Investigational product and software are adequately identified; other resource types are not applicable.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Procedures, paragraph 1]

“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.”

direct quote[Methods, Participants, paragraph 2; Methods, Statistical analysis, paragraph 2]

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

PASSReviewer 3· 85% conf

The investigational drug (edaravone dexborneol) is identified with manufacturer, dose, and regimen. The placebo is described. The iStroke software is identified with version. No antibodies, cell lines, or other biological resources were used, so those criteria are not applicable.

Evidence

direct quote[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”

direct quote[Methods, Participants]

“We used iStroke software (version 3.13) to calculate the infarct core volume”

direct quote[Methods, Procedures]

“The placebo comprised all excipient ingredients, including sodium metabisulfite, propylene glycol as a solvent, and hydrochloric acid and/or sodium hydroxide for pH adjustment”

Tests (logistic regression, ordinal logistic regression, linear regression) are named. Exact p-values (e.g., P=0.05, P=0.53, P=0.003) and 95% confidence intervals are reported for all outcomes. The statistical software (SAS 9.4) is identified. The power analysis is described. The paper includes a CONSORT-like flow diagram. Error bars are defined (95% CI). Mathematical plausibility checks: the reported event counts and percentages appear internally consistent (e.g., 379/689=55.0%, 333/671=49.6%, risk difference 5.4% matches 55.0-49.6). The number needed to treat is 19 (reciprocal of 0.054 ≈ 18.5, rounded up, plausible).

Sub-criteria

tests namedADEQUATE

exact p valuesADEQUATE

effect sizes ciADEQUATE

data presentationADEQUATE

software identifiedADEQUATE

assumptions verifiedADEQUATE

mathematical plausibilityPASS

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Statistical tests are named, the analysis plan is pre-specified, exact p-values and confidence intervals are reported, software is identified, and data presentation includes individual points in supplemental figures.

Evidence

direct quote[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% CI 1.00 to 1.23; P=0.05”

direct quote[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.”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“We used SAS version 9.4 for statistical analyses”

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

Statistical tests are named, effect sizes with CIs are reported, exact p-values are given, and the analysis plan is pre-specified. Assumptions are implicitly handled by design.

Evidence

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis, paragraph 1]

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

direct quote[Results, Primary and secondary outcomes; Table 2]

“P=0.05”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis, paragraph 2]

“We used SAS version 9.4 for statistical analyses, in accordance with a predefined statistical analysis plan that was provided before the database was unmasked and locked.”

WARNReviewer 3· 90% conf

Statistical tests are named, software is identified, and data presentation includes individual risk ratios and CIs. However, exact p-values are not consistently reported for all outcomes (e.g., 'P=0.05' for the primary outcome, which is borderline), and effect sizes/confidence intervals are reported but the primary p-value is exactly 0.05. Assumptions verification is not explicitly reported, but for a large RCT using logistic regression this is less critical. The primary outcome p-value is reported as 'P=0.05', which is acceptable but borderline; the paper does not provide exact p-values for all secondary outcomes beyond the primary.

Evidence

direct quote[Results, Primary and secondary outcomes]

“P=0.05”

direct quote[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.”

direct quote[Methods, Statistical analysis]

“We used SAS version 9.4 for statistical analyses”

The data availability statement names a concrete repository (National Clinical Medical Data Center, ncmi.cn) with a DOI/persistent identifier (CSTR:17970.11.A004X.202509.2.V1.0). The code used for analysis is provided in appendix S15. Because individual patient-level clinical trial data are shared in a controlled-access manner via a repository, this meets the adequate standard. Two interactive data visualisation URLs are also provided.

Sub-criteria

code sharingADEQUATE

accession numbersN/A

repository depositADEQUATE

data availability statementADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

Data are openly deposited in a public repository with a persistent identifier, and the analysis code is provided in an appendix.

Evidence

direct quote[Data availability statement]

“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”

direct quote[Data availability statement]

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

WARNReviewer 2· 90% conf

Data are openly available via a repository with a persistent link, but the analysis code is only provided in a supplementary appendix, not in a public repository with a permanent identifier.

Evidence

direct quote[Data availability statement]

“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.”

direct quote[Data availability statement]

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

PASSReviewer 3· 90% conf

A data availability statement is present with a concrete repository URL. The code is available in an appendix. The paper provides an online data repository with a persistent identifier.

Evidence

direct quote[Data availability statement]

“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”

direct quote[Data availability statement]

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

Trial registration number is reported. The methods section is comprehensive. Limitations are explicitly discussed (overestimated effect, selection bias, anterior circulation only, single-ethnicity, centre selection bias, convergence issues). Conclusions do not overclaim: they highlight the borderline primary result and the exploratory nature of the subgroup finding. Funding sources and competing interests are provided.

Sub-criteria

funding coiADEQUATE

trial registrationADEQUATE

reporting guidelineADEQUATE

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 95% conf

The trial is registered (NCT05249920), methods are detailed enough for replication, limitations are discussed, conclusions are proportional, and funding/COI are disclosed.

Evidence

direct quote[Abstract]

“Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05249920”

direct quote[Discussion, Strengths and limitations of study]

“the effect of edaravone dexborneol compared with placebo was initially overestimated... insufficient sample size... selection bias...”

direct quote[Funding and Competing interests sections]

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

PASSReviewer 2· 95% conf

The manuscript is well-structured with detailed methods, trial registration, outcomes reported, limitations discussed, and proportional conclusions. Only the reporting guideline checklist is not mentioned.

Evidence

direct quote[Abstract, Trial registration]

“Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05249920.”

direct quote[Discussion, Strengths and limitations of study]

“Firstly, the effect of edaravone dexborneol compared with placebo was initially overestimated...”

direct quote[Funding; Competing interests]

“This trial was supported by Simcere Pharmaceutical Group, the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China...”

PASSReviewer 3· 90% conf

Methods are reported in detail, the trial is registered (NCT05249920), limitations are discussed, conclusions are proportional, and funding/COI are disclosed. All outcomes are reported, including null results. The paper does not explicitly mention a reporting checklist (CONSORT), but it includes a trial profile (Figure 1) that is a CONSORT flow diagram.

Evidence

direct quote[Abstract]

“Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05249920”

direct quote[Discussion, Strengths and limitations of study]

“This trial had several limitations. Firstly, the effect of edaravone dexborneol compared with placebo was initially overestimated ...”

direct quote[Table 2]

“mRS score of 0-2 at 90 days ... P=0.05; Recurrence of stroke ... P=0.68; All cause mortality within 90 days ... P>0.99”

5 copyedit issues flagged: mostly typo, consistency, other.

Checked 31 references: 31 verified.

Reproducibility

4 data/code links checked; 3 live.

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

Adcurare Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

Ready after minor edits. The paper is methodologically sound, but the internal contradiction in Table 2 (adverse events: 354/690 is not 33.0%) must be corrected before submission — this is a data integrity issue that editors and reviewers would catch. Additionally, adding a regulatory-compliance statement, a CONSORT checklist mention, verifying statistical assumptions, and depositing code in a public repository would strengthen the submission and pre-empt reviewer requests.

1.
HIGHcopyedit
Correct the adverse events count/percentage in Table 2 for the edaravone dexborneol group: '354/690' is arithmetically 51.3%, not 33.0%. Verify the correct numerator (e.g., 228/690 ≈ 33.0%) and denominator, and update the table accordingly.
This internal contradiction is a data integrity error that will be caught by reviewers or editors and undermines trust in the reporting.
2.
HIGHethics
Add an explicit sentence to the Ethics section stating that the study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and/or ICH Good Clinical Practice guidelines.
This is a standard requirement for human clinical trial reporting; its absence is a key gap flagged by reviewers.
3.
HIGHreporting
Add a statement to the Methods section (e.g., in Study design or Statistical analysis) that the trial is reported in accordance with the CONSORT 2010 statement, and provide the completed CONSORT checklist as supplementary material.
Many journals require explicit reporting guideline adherence; including it pre-empts a common reviewer request.
4.
HIGHstatistics
Add a sentence in the Statistical analysis section stating that the assumptions of logistic regression (e.g., linearity of logit, absence of multicollinearity, no influential outliers) were checked and satisfied, or note that the large sample size makes the model robust.
The assumptions sub-criterion was not reported; adding this shows analytical thoroughness.
5.
HIGHdata code
Deposit the analysis code (currently in appendix S15) in a version-controlled public repository (e.g., GitHub, Zenodo) with a persistent DOI and update the data availability statement to reference that repository.
Supplementary appendices are not version-controlled and lack a persistent identifier, which is the expected best practice for computational reproducibility.
6.
MEDIUMstatistics
Provide exact p-values for all outcomes in Table 2 instead of inequalities such as 'P>0.99' — report the precise value (e.g., 'P=0.99' or 'P=0.999') in the table or a footnote.
Exact p-values are more informative and allow readers to assess results precisely; the current reporting is inconsistent.
7.
MEDIUMreporting
Add a note in the Statistical analysis section clarifying that all secondary outcome p-values are two-sided and unadjusted for multiplicity, and briefly discuss this in the limitations.
Transparency about multiplicity adjustment (or lack thereof) is important for interpreting the secondary analyses.
8.
MEDIUMreporting
In the Discussion, add a brief sentence addressing whether the borderline primary p-value (0.05) remains robust after adjustment for the reported subgroup analyses or secondary comparisons.
The borderline p-value and exploratory nature of the subgroup finding should be contextualised to avoid over-interpretation.
9.
MEDIUMreporting
Add a summary of the random-centre-effect convergence issue to the Methods (Statistical analysis) so readers understand why centre was not included as a random effect.
The limitations section mentions convergence issues; providing the methodological detail upfront improves transparency.
10.
LOWother
Provide a plain-language summary of the subgroup findings and their exploratory nature in the abstract to minimise risk of over-interpretation in news coverage.
Subgroup analyses are often over-emphasised; explicitly labeling them as exploratory in the abstract is a safeguard.

Full text (52,856 chars)Analyzed: Jul 7, 2026

Read alongside

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

Read full text (PMC)

Journal

DOI

10.1136/bmj-2025-086850

Share this Rigor Review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://adcurare.com/verify/6d387ef6-61d8-4c1a-a09f-b91495388c25" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://adcurare.com/verify/6d387ef6-61d8-4c1a-a09f-b91495388c25/badge" alt="Adcurare Rigor Review — 4★ (Strong), 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.”" width="440" height="104" style="max-width:100%;height:auto" />
</a>

Every embed links back to this Rigor Record.

Record fingerprint

9fb951c62fd31404346b7b6f9e197e8df6abf361bc711b71450c78238d156406

Verify via API

Issued Jul 7, 2026Engine 7.6.0

Adcurare assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we evaluate →