ArticleStroke2016
Stroke Treatment Academic Industry Roundtable Recommendations for Individual Data Pooling Analyses in Stroke.
Article in Stroke, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The stroke outcome optimization project: Acute ischemic strokes from a comprehensive stroke center.Scientific data · 2024Article
- Selection of a statistical analysis method for the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended endpoint for estimating the probability of favorable outcome in future severe TBI clinical trials.Statistics in medicine · 2023Article
- Effects of edaravone dexborneol on neurological function and serum inflammatory factor levels in patients with acute anterior circulation large vessel occlusion stroke.Translational neuroscience · 2023Article
- Do you dare with a health-economy methodology issue? An editorial comment on "A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses on endovascular thrombectomy in ischemic stroke patients".European radiology · 2022Article
- Improving Visualization Methods of Utility-Weighted Disability Outcomes for Stroke Trials.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
- Predicting 90-day modified Rankin Scale score with discharge information in acute ischaemic stroke patients following treatment.BMJ neurology open · 2021Article
- Utility-Weighted Modified Rankin Scale as Primary Outcome in Stroke Trials: A Simulation Study.Stroke · 2018Article
- Classification of Different Degrees of Disability Following Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Decision Tree Analysis from VISTA-ICH Collaboration.Frontiers in neurology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrection.2016
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pooled analysis of individual patient data from stroke trials can deliver more precise estimates of treatment effect, enhance power to examine prespecified subgroups, and facilitate exploration of treatment-modifying influences. Analysis plans should be declared, and preferably published, before trial results are known. For pooling trials that used diverse analytic approaches, an ordinal analysis is favored, with justification for considering deaths and severe disability jointly. Because trial pooling is an incremental process, analyses should follow a sequential approach, with statistical adjustment for iterations. Updated analyses should be published when revised conclusions have a clinical implication. However, caution is recommended in declaring pooled findings that may prejudice ongoing trials, unless clinical implications are compelling. All contributing trial teams should contribute to leadership, data verification, and authorship of pooled analyses. Development work is needed to enable reliable inferences to be drawn about individual drug or device effects that contribute to a pooled analysis, versus a class effect, if the treatment strategy combines ≥2 such drugs or devices. Despite the practical challenges, pooled analyses are powerful and essential tools in interpreting clinical trial findings and advancing clinical care.
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.