Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31011843›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2019

Ethics and Bias in Clinical Trial Enrollment in Stroke.

Jennifer Juhl Majersik

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

1 author.

Jennifer Juhl MajersikStroke Center, University of Utah, 175 N Medical Center Drive, Third Floor, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132, USA. Jennifer.Majersik@hsc.utah.edu.

Funding

UT StrokeNet Administrative SupplementU24NS107228 · NINDS · UTAH STATE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM--UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI Jennifer Juhl Majersik · 2018 to 2026
$3.0M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewTo familiarize the reader with ethical concerns and potential scientific bias in management and conduction of clinical stroke trials. RECENT

findingsThe goal of clinical trials in stroke is to find effective interventions for stroke prevention, acute treatment, and rehabilitation and recovery. Acute trials must be designed in the context of the time-sensitivity of revascularization therapies. Standard ethical constraints apply. However, informed consent is hindered by tight time windows for reperfusion therapy and frequent cognitive impairment in patients. These might be mitigated by using visual decision aids. Non-traditional methods of consent such as utilization of surrogates, telemedicine, and exception from informed consent are critical for successful and unbiased conduction of stroke trials. Stroke centers must have an a priori plan for deciding which trial to offer multiple-trial eligible patients. Historic non-generalizability of stroke trials due to under-enrollment of women, racial minorities, and age extremes is improving, but adequate representative recruitment and retention require up-front planning and training. Stroke trials have become less biased and more representative in the last decades, but there is still research to be done to improve ethical and unbiased recruitment and retention.

Indexed as

BiasClinical Trials as TopicDecision MakingDecision Support TechniquesHumansInformed ConsentPatient SelectionStrokeBiasClinical trialEnrollmentEthicsRetentionStroke

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.