Trial reportNeurology2015
Enrollment volume effect on risk factor control and outcomes in the SAMMPRIS trial.
Trial report in Neurology, 2015. 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.
- Safety of endovascular therapy for symptomatic intracranial artery stenosis: a national prospective registry.Stroke and vascular neurology · 2022Article
- Management of Symptomatic Intracranial Stenosis.Current cardiology reports · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe role of physician experience and patient volumes on the outcome of surgical or endovascular procedures has been well-studied but there are limited data on how these factors affect the outcome of medical therapy.
methodsIn the stenting and medical cohorts of the Stenting and Aggressive Medical Management for the Prevention of Recurrent Ischemic Stroke (SAMMPRIS) trial, we compared Kaplan-Meier (K-M) curves for the primary endpoint (any stroke or death within 30 days of enrollment or ischemic stroke in the territory beyond 30 days) using the log-rank test and the percentages of patients achieving target levels for primary and secondary risk factors during the study using Fisher exact test between patients at high-enrolling (≥12 patients) vs low-enrolling (<12 patients) sites.
resultsIn the stenting group, the K-M curves for the primary endpoint were similar at high-enrolling sites and low-enrolling sites (p = 0.93) with rates of 13.5% vs 14.7% at 30 days and 19.0% vs 20.6% at 2 years. In the medical group, the K-M curves differed between high-enrolling sites and low-enrolling sites (p = 0.0005) with rates of 1.8% vs 9.8% at 30 days and 7.3% vs 20.9% at 2 years. The percentages of patients who achieved targets for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and systolic blood pressure at high- vs low-enrolling sites in both treatment groups combined were 64% vs 49% (p = 0.003) and 70% vs 59% (p = 0.026), respectively.
conclusionsHigh-enrolling sites in SAMMPRIS achieved better control of primary risk factors and much lower rates of the primary endpoint than low-enrolling sites in the medical group, suggesting that experience with medical management is an important determinant of patient outcome.
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.