PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 1, 2009International Journal of Stroke403 citations

Functional Outcome Measures in Contemporary Stroke Trials

View Full Paper
Terence J. Quinn
Terence J. QuinnVascular / Pulmonary Vascular
JDJesse DawsonVascular MedicineMWMatthew R. WaltersUniversity of Glasgow

Key Points

  • This research aims to evaluate the methodologies used for functional outcome assessments in stroke trials and identify discrepancies.
  • Reviewed six high-impact journals for interventional studies in stroke patients from 2001 to 2006
  • Analyzed outcome assessment methodologies across 126 identified trials
  • Assessed primary endpoints in relation to functional outcomes
  • Various outcome measures (47 types) were employed across trials, with the modified Rankin scale used in 64.3% of studies
  • Only 33.3% of trials fully disclosed their outcome assessment methodology
  • Significant heterogeneity in data collection practices was observed, affecting trial quality and comparability

Abstract

Various instruments are used to describe poststroke functional outcome, with limited consensus as to optimal end-point for clinical trial use. Many of the popular assessment tools are administered with little formal guidance on best practice. Thus there is potential for substantial heterogeneity in functional outcome assessment poststroke, with consequent effects on trial quality. We examined functional assessment methodology in recent stroke trials. We reviewed six journals representing high-impact international publications in the fields of: stroke (Stroke); neurology (Neurology, Lancet Neurology) and internal medicine (Lancet, New England Journal Medicine; Journal of the American Medical Association). Journals were hand searched for all interventional studies in stroke patients between 2001 and 2006 inclusive. Chosen manuscripts were then analyzed for outcome assessment methodology. We identified 126 trials, comprising a mix of early hypothesis generating studies through to multi-centre trials (phase I: four trials; phase II: 46 trials; phase III: 20 trials; noninvestigational medicinal product studies: 56 trials). The median number of patients assessed per trial was 100. Across the trials, 47 different outcome measures were used. One hundred trials had functional outcome assessment as the primary study end-point. The median number of outcome measures was two per trial (range 1-9). The modified Rankin scale was the most prevalent outcome assessment (64.3%); followed by Barthel index (40.5%). A minority of trials (33.3%) provided full details on outcome assessment methodology. Among these trials there was substantial heterogeneity in data collection procedures. There is heterogeneity in the use of functional outcome measures in stroke trials. This compromises comparison and meta-analysis. Trialists continue to use poorly validated approaches to outcome assessment. Given the potential effects on data quality, explicit description of methodology should be mandatory for all trials and rigour is desirable.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Quinn et al. (2009) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69fa8aa29fa336b96d47da5dhttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4949.2009.00271.x
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Use of the Barthel Index and Modified Rankin Scale in Acute Stroke Trials1999 · 1,121 citations
  2. 2Trends in Acute Ischemic Stroke Trials Through the 20th Century2001 · 246 citations
  3. 3Recommendations From the STAIR V Meeting on Acute Stroke Trials, Technology and Outcomes2007 · 106 citations
  4. 4Comparison of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale With Disability Outcome Measures in Acute Stroke Trials2005 · 131 citations
  5. 5tPA by telephone: Extending the benefits of a comprehensive stroke center2005 · 69 citations