Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28959471›Full record

Trial reportStroke and vascular neurology2016

Taking care of volunteers in a stroke trial: a new assisted-management strategy.

Amber C Stuart, Jason J Sico, Catherine M Viscoli, Ashis H Tayal, Silvio E Inzucchi, Gary A Ford, Karen L Furie, Robert Cote, J David Spence, David Tanne and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Stroke and vascular neurology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00091949 (Insulin Resistance Intervention After Stroke), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
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.

NCT00091949 phase3completednot on this map

Insulin Resistance Intervention After Stroke (IRIS) Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorYale UniversityRan2005 to 2015Enrolled3,876ConditionsStroke, Myocardial Infarction, DiabetesArmspioglitazone, placebo
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Amber C StuartDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Jason J SicoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Catherine M ViscoliDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Ashis H TayalNeuroscience Institute, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Silvio E InzucchiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Gary A FordDivision of Medical Sciences, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
Karen L FurieThe Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Robert CoteDepartment of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
J David SpenceUniversity of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
David TanneSheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Walter N KernanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Yale University · USAllegheny Health Network · USBrown University · USMcGill University · CASheba Medical Center · ILUniversity of Oxford · GBWestern University · CA

Funding

Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke TrialU01NS044876 · NINDS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI KERNAN, WALTER N · 2004 to 2013
$73.6M
NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS044876
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeProviding participants with evidence-based care for secondary prevention is an ethical and scientific priority for trials in stroke therapy. The optimal strategy, however, is uncertain. We report the performance of a new approach for delivering preventive care to trial participants.

methodsParticipants were enrolled in the Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke trial, which examined the insulin sensitiser, pioglitazone versus placebo for prevention of stroke and myocardial infarction after ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack. Preventive care was the responsibility of the participants' personal healthcare providers, but investigators monitored care and provided feedback annually. We studied achievement of 8 prevention goals at baseline and 3 annual visits, with a focus on 3 priority goals: blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol <2.59 mmol/L and antithrombotic therapy.

resultsThe proportion of participants achieving the priority goals was highest for antithrombotic use (96-99% in each year) and similar for blood pressure (66-72% in each year) and LDL (68-70% in each year). All 3 priority goals were achieved by 47-52% of participants in any given year. However, only 22% of participants achieved all 3 goals in each year.

conclusionsA strategy of monitoring care and providing feedback was associated with high average yearly achievement of 3 priority secondary prevention goals, but the majority of trial participants did not persist in being at goal over time. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00091949.

Indexed as

Secondary PreventionAgedAnticholesteremic AgentsAntihypertensive AgentsBiomarkersBlood CoagulationBlood PressureCholesterol, LDLDouble-Blind MethodEuropeFemaleFibrinolytic AgentsHumansHypoglycemic AgentsInsulin ResistanceIschemic Attack, TransientAnticholesteremic AgentsAntihypertensive AgentsBiomarkersCholesterol, LDLFibrinolytic AgentsHypoglycemic AgentsPioglitazoneischemic strokerisk factorssecondary preventiontransient ischemic attack

Identifiers

PMID28959471
PMCPMC5435205
OpenAlexW2528468220

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.