Randomized clinical trials in stroke research.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ahn C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2837939 | biostudies-other | 2010 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Randomized clinical trials in stroke research.
Journal of investigative medicine : the official publication of the American Federation for Clinical Research 20100201 2
A randomized clinical trial is widely regarded as the most rigorous study design to determine the efficacy of intervention because spurious causality and bias associated with other experimental designs can be avoided. The purpose of this article is to provide clinicians and clinical researchers the types of randomized clinical trials used in stroke studies and to discuss the advantages and the limitations for each type of randomized stroke clinical trials. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5104619 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC2366892 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Promoting research to improve stroke prevention, acute care, and recovery is a key mission of the European Stroke Organisation (ESO). Stroke research networks may increase efficiencies and reduce waste in randomised clinical trials of stroke treatments. Several European countries have established national or regional stroke research networks, or have informal groups or stroke registers which may serve as a foundation for establishing a research network. To increase international collaboration on randomised trials for stroke in Europe, the ESO Trials Network Committee is leading the development of an alliance of national networks, the ESO Trials Alliance (ESOTA). Following initial consultation work in 2017, this paper describes an overview of progress to date in the first year of ESOTA activity. Beginning with five founding networks in England, Ireland, Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland, ESOTA aims to gradually grow, ultimately including several hundred stroke centres and affiliated investigators working collectively on randomised trials of new stroke treatments.
| S-EPMC6960687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purposeThe Stroke Treatment Academic Industry Roundtable (STAIR) sponsored an imaging session and workshop during the Stroke Treatment Academic Industry Roundtable XI via webinar on October 1 to 2, 2020, to develop consensus recommendations, particularly regarding optimal imaging at primary stroke centers.MethodsThis forum brought together stroke neurologists, neuroradiologists, neuroimaging research scientists, members of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, industry representatives, and members of the US Food and Drug Administration to discuss imaging priorities in the light of developments in reperfusion therapies, particularly in an extended time window, and reinvigorated interest in brain cytoprotection trials.ResultsThe imaging session summarized and compared the imaging components of recent acute stroke trials and debated the optimal imaging strategy at primary stroke centers. The imaging workshop developed consensus recommendations for optimizing the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of computed tomography and magnetic resonance acute stroke imaging, and also recommendations on imaging strategies for primary stroke centers.ConclusionsRecent positive acute stroke clinical trials have extended the treatment window for reperfusion therapies using imaging selection. Achieving rapid and high-quality stroke imaging is therefore critical at both primary and comprehensive stroke centers. Recommendations for enhancing stroke imaging research are provided.
| S-EPMC8316368 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe results of numerous large randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have changed clinical practice in gastric cancer (GC). However, research waste (ie, unpublished data, inadequate reporting, or avoidable design limitations) is still a major challenge for evidence-based medicine.ObjectivesTo determine the characteristics of GC RCTs in the past 20 years and the presence of research waste and to explore potential targets for improvement.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study of GC RCTs, ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for phase 3 or 4 RCTs registered from January 2000 to December 2019 using the keyword gastric cancer. Independent investigators undertook assessments and resolved discrepancies via consensus. Data were analyzed from August through December 2020.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were descriptions of the characteristics of GC RCTs and the proportion of studies with signs of research waste. Research waste was defined as unpublished data, inadequate reporting, or avoidable design limitations. Publication status was determined by searching PubMed and Scopus databases. The adequacy of reporting was evaluated using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guideline checklist. Avoidable design limitations were determined based on existing bias or lack of cited systematic literature reviews. In the analyses of research waste, 125 RCTs that ended after June 2016 without publication were excluded.ResultsA total of 262 GC RCTs were included. The number of RCTs increased from 25 trials in 2000 to 2004 to 97 trials in 2015 to 2019, with a greater increase among RCTs of targeted therapy or immunotherapy, which increased from 0 trials in 2000 to 2004 to 36 trials in 2015 to 2019. The proportion of RCTs that were multicenter was higher in non-Asian regions than in Asian regions (50 of 71 RCTs [70.4%] vs 96 of 191 RCTs [50.3%]; P = .004). The analysis of research waste included 137 RCTs, of which 81 (59.1%) were published. Among published RCTs, 65 (80.2%) were judged to be adequately reported and 63 (77.8%) had avoidable design defects. Additionally, 119 RCTs (86.9%) had 1 or more features of research waste. Study settings that included blinding (odds ratio [OR], 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.93; P = .03), a greater number of participants (ie, ≥200 participants; OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.51; P = .01), and external funding support (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.60; P = .004) were associated with lower odds of research waste. Additionally, 35 RCTs (49.3%) were referenced in guidelines, and 18 RCTs (22.2%) had their prospective data reused.Conclusions and relevanceTo our knowledge, this study is the first to describe the characteristics of GC RCTs in the past 20 years, and it found a research waste burden, which may provide evidence for the development of rational RCTs and reduction of waste in the future.
| S-EPMC8449283 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purposeThe Stroke Imaging Research (STIR) group, the Imaging Working Group of StrokeNet, the American Society of Neuroradiology, and the Foundation of the American Society of Neuroradiology sponsored an imaging session and workshop during the Stroke Treatment Academy Industry Roundtable (STAIR) IX on October 5 to 6, 2015 in Washington, DC. The purpose of this roadmap was to focus on the role of imaging in future research and clinical trials.MethodsThis forum brought together stroke neurologists, neuroradiologists, neuroimaging research scientists, members of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), industry representatives, and members of the US Food and Drug Administration to discuss STIR priorities in the light of an unprecedented series of positive acute stroke endovascular therapy clinical trials.ResultsThe imaging session summarized and compared the imaging components of the recent positive endovascular trials and proposed opportunities for pooled analyses. The imaging workshop developed consensus recommendations for optimal imaging methods for the acquisition and analysis of core, mismatch, and collaterals across multiple modalities, and also a standardized approach for measuring the final infarct volume in prospective clinical trials.ConclusionsRecent positive acute stroke endovascular clinical trials have demonstrated the added value of neurovascular imaging. The optimal imaging profile for endovascular treatment includes large vessel occlusion, smaller core, good collaterals, and large penumbra. However, equivalent definitions for the imaging profile parameters across modalities are needed, and a standardization effort is warranted, potentially leveraging the pooled data resulting from the recent positive endovascular trials.
| S-EPMC6058693 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIncentivizing research participation is controversial and variably regulated because of uncertainty regarding whether financial incentives serve as undue inducements by diminishing peoples' sensitivity to research risks or unjust inducements by preferentially increasing enrollment among underserved individuals.ObjectiveTo determine whether incentives improve enrollment in real randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or serve as undue or unjust inducements.Design, setting, and participantsTwo RCTs of incentives that were embedded in 2 parent RCTs, 1 comparing smoking cessation interventions (conducted at smoking cessation clinics in 2 health systems) and 1 evaluating an ambulation intervention (conducted across wards of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania) included all persons eligible for the parent trials who did not have prior knowledge of the incentives trials. Recruitment occurred from September 2017 to August 2019 for the smoking trial and January 2018 through May 2019 for the ambulation trial; data were analyzed from January 2020 to July 2020.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to incentives of $0, $200, or $500 for participating in the smoking cessation trial and $0, $100, or $300 for the ambulation trial.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome of each incentive trial was the proportion of people assigned to each recruitment strategy that consented to participate. Each trial was powered to test the hypotheses that incentives served neither as undue inducements (based on the interaction between incentive size and perceived research risk, as measured using a 10-point scale, on the primary outcome), nor unjust inducements (based on the interaction between incentive size and participants' self-reported income). Noninferiority methods were used to test whether the data were compatible with these 2 effects of incentives and superiority methods to compare the primary and other secondary outcomes.ResultsThere were a total of 654 participants (327 women [50.0%]; mean [SD] age, 50.6 [12.1] years; 394 Black/African American [60.2%], 214 White [32.7%], and 24 multiracial individuals [3.7%]) in the smoking trial, and 642 participants (364 women [56.7%]; mean [SD] age, 46.7 [15.6] years; 224 Black/African American [34.9%], 335 White [52.2%], and 5 multiracial individuals [0.8%]) in the ambulation trial. Incentives significantly increased consent rates among those in the smoking trial in 47 of 216 (21.8%), 78 of 217 (35.9%), and 104 of 221 (47.1%) in the $0, $200, and $500 groups, respectively (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for each increase in incentive, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.34-2.17; P < .001). Incentives did not increase consent among those in the ambulation trial: 98 of 216 (45.4%), 102 of 212 (48.1%), and 92 of 214 (43.0%) in the $0, $100, and $300 groups, respectively (aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.22; P = .45). In neither trial was there evidence of undue or unjust inducement (upper confidence limits of ORs for undue inducement, 1.15 and 0.99; P < .001 showing noninferiority; upper confidence limits of ORs for unjust inducement, 1.21 and 1.26; P = .01 and P < .001, respectively). There were no significant effects of incentive size on the secondary outcomes in either trial, including time spent reviewing the risk sections of consent forms, perceived research risks, trial understanding, perceived coercion, or therapeutic misconceptions.Conclusions and relevanceIn these 2 randomized clinical trials, financial incentives increased trial enrollment in 1 of 2 trials and did not produce undue or unjust inducement or other unintended consequences in either trial.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02697799.
| S-EPMC8453363 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As electronic medical records enable increasingly ambitious studies of treatment outcomes, ethical issues previously important only to limited clinical trials become relevant to unlimited whole populations. For randomized clinical trials, adaptive assignment strategies are known to expose substantially fewer patients to avoidable treatment failures than strategies with fixed assignments (e.g., equal sample sizes). An idealized adaptive case--the two-armed Bernoulli bandit problem--can be exactly optimized for a variety of ethically motivated cost functions that embody principles of duty-to-patient, but the solutions have been thought computationally infeasible when the numbers of patients in the study (the "horizon") is large. We report numerical experiments that yield a heuristic approximation that applies even to very large horizons, and we propose a near-optimal strategy that remains valid even when the horizon is unknown or unbounded, thus applicable to comparative effectiveness studies on large populations or to standard-of-care recommendations. For the case in which the economic cost of treatment is a parameter, we give a heuristic, near-optimal strategy for determining the superior treatment (whether more or less costly) while minimizing resources wasted on any inferior, more expensive, treatment. Key features of our heuristics can be generalized to more complicated protocols.
| S-EPMC2793317 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Family caregivers provide invaluable support to stroke survivors during their recovery, rehabilitation, and community re-integration. Unfortunately, it is not standard clinical practice to prepare and support caregivers in this role and, as a result, many experience stress and poor health that can compromise stroke survivor recovery and threaten the sustainability of keeping the stroke survivor at home. We developed the Timing it Right Stroke Family Support Program (TIRSFSP) to guide the timing of delivering specific types of education and support to meet caregivers' evolving needs. The objective of this multi-site randomized controlled trial is to determine if delivering the TIRSFSP across the stroke care continuum improves caregivers' sense of being supported and emotional well-being.Our multi-site single-blinded randomized controlled trial will recruit 300 family caregivers of stroke survivors from urban and rural acute care hospitals. After completing a baseline assessment, participants will be randomly allocated to one of three groups: 1) TIRSFSP guided by a stroke support person (health care professional with stroke care experience), delivered in-person during acute care and by telephone for approximately the first six to 12 months post-stroke, 2) caregiver self-directed TIRSFSP with an initial introduction to the program by a stroke support person, or 3) standard care receiving the educational resource "Let's Talk about Stroke" prepared by the Heart and Stroke Foundation. Participants will complete three follow-up quantitative assessments 3, 6, and 12-months post-stroke. These include assessments of depression, social support, psychological well-being, stroke knowledge, mastery (sense of control over life), caregiving assistance provided, caregiving impact on everyday life, and indicators of stroke severity and disability. Qualitative methods will also be used to obtain information about caregivers' experiences with the education and support received and the impact on caregivers' perception of being supported and emotional well-being.This research will determine if the TIRSFSP benefits family caregivers by improving their perception of being supported and emotional well-being. If proven effective, it could be recommended as a model of stroke family education and support that meets the Canadian Stroke Best Practice Guideline recommendation for providing timely education and support to families through transitions.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00958607.
| S-EPMC3898562 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Genomics and Randomized Trials Network (GARNET)
| PRJNA158493 | ENA