ArticleEuropean stroke journal2018
The effect of different combinations of vascular, dependency and cognitive endpoints on the sample size required to detect a treatment effect in trials of treatments to improve outcome after lacunar and non-lacunar ischaemic stroke.
Article in European stroke journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Design of trials in lacunar stroke and cerebral small vessel disease: review and experience with the LACunar Intervention Trial 2 (LACI-2).Stroke and vascular neurology · 2024Review
- Impact of Small Vessel Disease Progression on Long-term Cognitive and Functional Changes After Stroke.Neurology · 2022Article
- Potential recruitment into a clinical trial of vascular secondary prevention medications in cerebral small vessel disease, based on concomitant medication use.Cerebral circulation - cognition and behavior · 2021Article
- Early rehabilitation after stroke: relationship between the heart rate variability and functional outcome.ESC heart failure · 2020Article
- Protocol: The Lacunar Intervention Trial 2 (LACI-2). A trial of two repurposed licenced drugs to prevent progression of cerebral small vessel disease.European stroke journal · 2020Article
- Functional Assessment for Acute Stroke Trials: Properties, Analysis, and Application.Frontiers in neurology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEndpoints that are commonly used in trials of moderate/severe stroke may be less frequent in patients with minor, non-disabling stroke thus inflating sample sizes. We tested whether trial efficiency might be improved with composite endpoints.
methodsWe prospectively recruited patients with lacunar and minor non-lacunar ischaemic stroke (NIHSS ≤ 7) and assessed recurrent vascular events (stroke, transient ischaemic attack (TIA), ischemic heart disease (IHD)), modified Rankin Score (mRS) and cognitive testing with the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination (ACE-R) one year post-stroke. For a potential secondary prevention randomised controlled trial (RCT), we estimated sample sizes using individual or combined outcomes, at power 80% (and 90%), alpha 5%, required to detect a relative 10% risk reduction.
resultsAmongst 264 patients (118 lacunar, 146 non-lacunar), at one year, 30/264 (11%) patients had a recurrent vascular event, 5 (2%) had died, 3 (1%) had clinically-diagnosed dementia, 53/264 (20%) had mRS ≥ 3 and 29/158 (19%) had ACE-R ≤ 82 (57 could not attend for cognitive testing). For a potential trial, at 80% power, using mRS ≥ 3 alone would require
conclusionsComposite outcomes including vascular events, dependency, and cognition reduce sample size and increase efficiency, feasibility, and relevance to patients of RCTs in minor ischaemic stroke. Efficiency might be improved further with more practical cognitive test strategies.
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.