Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27406108›Full record

ArticleStroke2016

Stroke Treatment Academic Industry Roundtable Recommendations for Individual Data Pooling Analyses in Stroke.

Kennedy R Lees, Pooja Khatri, STAIR IX Collaborators

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kennedy R LeesFrom the Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Scotland (K.R.L.); and Department of Neurology and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Cincinnati, OH (P.K.).
Pooja KhatriFrom the Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Scotland (K.R.L.); and Department of Neurology and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Cincinnati, OH (P.K.). pooja.khatri@uc.edu.
STAIR IX Collaborators

Funding

LCenter for Clinical and Translational Science and TrainingUL1TR001425 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI MEINZEN-DERR, JAREEN, STRAWN, JEFFREY ROBERT · 2015 to 2024
$37.5M
NSTN National Clinical Coordinating CenterU01NS086872 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI Joseph Paul Broderick, Pooja Khatri · 2013 to 2026
$32.3M
Cincinnati Neuroscience Clinical Trials Research Center (CinciNEXT)U10NS077311 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI GLAUSER, TRACY A, WOO, DANIEL · 2011 to 2017
$2.1M
Cincinnati Regional Coordinating Stroke Center (Cincinnati RCC)U10NS086512 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI KHATRI, POOJA, KLEINDORFER, DAWN O · 2013 to 2017
$1.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001425NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS086872NINDS NIH HHS U10 NS077311NINDS NIH HHS U10 NS086512
6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical Trials as TopicMeta-Analysis as TopicResearch DesignStrokeHumansStatistics as Topicclinical trialmeta-analysis as topicrandomized controlled trialstroke

Identifiers

PMID27406108
PMCPMC4961517

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.