ReviewNeurological research2014
Data considerations in ischemic stroke trials.
Review in Neurological research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endothelial Shear Stress and Platelet FcγRIIa Expression in Intracranial Atherosclerotic Disease.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Review
- Temporal Changes in Care Processes and Outcomes for Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke: Retrospective Registry Data from Three Korean Centers.Neurointervention · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Data drive the analyses of any ischemic stroke trial, culminating in the main results and potential next steps. The distinct purpose of a given trial, advancing a novel treatment or examining routine clinical practice, determines the nature of essential data elements. Information gathering for an effective trial depends on ample data, adequate infrastructure, and properly planned statistical analyses. This review highlights the fact that successful future trials will require appropriate expertise that extends far beyond these basic considerations in order to move from identification of basic risk factors that are associated with outcomes to knowledge of pathophysiology and causation of outcomes. Efficient and productive data collection by local and central sites must be complemented by expert core lab adjudications. Source data archiving, including complete DICOM imaging datasets or biological specimens, are needed to maximize the potential for study interpretation and financial investment. Standard terminology, such as common data elements and definitions, enhance study comparisons. Screening logs attest to generalizability of a study. Real-time data transmission and core lab evaluation will be critical to guide adaptive trial design. Despite the overwhelming focus on the intervention in a particular treatment trial, individual pathophysiology must be considered. Understanding individual subject characteristics is a tenet of the coming era of precision stroke care, where the course of a given patient and eventual outcome is paramount. This will require a new approach to data collection in clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.