Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31262317›Full record

Trial reportBMC medicine2019

A multi-centre, UK-based, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of 4 follow-up assessment methods in stroke survivors.

Jonathan Hewitt, Anna Pennington, Alexander Smith, Stephanie Gething, Michelle Price, James White, Richard Dewar, Ben Carter

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

Trial report in BMC medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03177161 (Assessment of Patient Reported Health Status Questions Via Four Different Methods of Administration, in Stroke Survivors. A Randomised Controlled Trial. A Non-inferiority Study of the Response Rate for Four Alternative Methods of Administration of 15 Patient Reported Health Status Questions in Stroke Survivors.), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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.

NCT03177161 nacompletednot on this map

Assessment of Patient Reported Health Status Questions Via Four Different Methods of Administration, in Stroke Survivors. A Randomised Controlled Trial. A Non-inferiority Study of the Response Rate for Four Alternative Methods of Administration of 15 Patient Reported Health Status Questions in Stroke Survivors.

TypeinterventionalSponsorDr Jonathan HewittRan2017 to 2018Enrolled472ConditionsStroke, Cerebral Infarction, Cerebral Hemorrhage, Stroke HemorrhagicArms15 Patient Reported Health Status Questions
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Psychosocial Sequelae of Stroke in Working-Age Adults: A Pilot Study.The Journal of neuroscience nursing : journal of the American Association of Neuroscience Nurses · 2020
    Article
  10. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jonathan HewittDivision of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. HewittJ2@Cardiff.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7924-1792
Anna PenningtonAneurin Bevan University Health Board, Newport, South Wales, UK.
Alexander SmithAneurin Bevan University Health Board, Newport, South Wales, UK.
Stephanie GethingAneurin Bevan University Health Board, Newport, South Wales, UK.
Michelle PriceYnys Y Plant, Plantation Lane, Newtown, SY16 1LH, UK.
James WhitePrince Charles Hospital, Cwm Taf NHS Trust, Prince Charles Hospital, Merthyr Tydfil, CF47 9DT, UK.
Richard DewarPrince Charles Hospital, Cwm Taf NHS Trust, Prince Charles Hospital, Merthyr Tydfil, CF47 9DT, UK.
Ben CarterDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Aneurin Bevan University Health Board · GBPrince Charles Hospital · GBCardiff University · GBKing's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecovery following a stroke is a long and ongoing process. Post-stroke follow-up after leaving the hospital is recommended. Methods for follow-up patients include face-to-face, via the telephone, post or online (internet). However, there is a debate which method is preferred by patients. This study aimed to determine whether telephone interview, online questionnaire and postal questionnaire were as acceptable as face-to-face follow-up.

methodsIn a blinded, UK-wide, multi-centre, Zelen's designed, 4-arm (postal, online, telephone, compared to face-to-face), pragmatic non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of the mode of administration, stroke survivors were randomised to postal, online, telephone and face-to-face assessment, in an equal ratio (1:1:1:1). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that responded to the three allocation groups, compared to the face-to-face group. Subgroup analyses for age, aphasia and type and severity of stroke were carried out. A non-inferiority margin of 0.025 was used, and Holm-Bonferroni multiplicity adjustment was made.

resultsOf the 2074 eligible patients randomised, 55% were male (1142/2074), with an average age of 73.0 years old (SD = 13.2). Of those randomised, 22% (116/525), 9% (47/515) and 20% (101/513) responded in postal, online and telephone, respectively, compared to 17% (89/521) in the face-to-face group. The reduction in the online response rate compared to face-to-face was found to be both inferior and not non-inferior and estimated as an 8% reduction (95% CI 3.9 to 12.0%; p < 0.001). The association with lower online completion was present regardless of age, stroke type (haemorrhage or infarct) and stroke severity. In haemorrhagic stroke, the reduction in response online, compared to face-to-face, was 21% (95% CI 10 to 32%; p value = 0.002). A secondary analysis found non-aphasic stroke survivors preferred postal completion adjusted odds ratio of 1.43 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.95; p = 0.026).

conclusionsThe study found that fewer stroke survivors completed follow-up assessment using an online method, compared to face-to-face. This finding was present in all age groups. Caution should be employed when considering online follow-up methods in stroke survivors, particularly in those who have experienced a cerebrovascular haemorrhage. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03177161 . Registered on 6 June 2017.

Indexed as

AgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleRisk AssessmentStrokeSurveys and QuestionnairesSurvivorsUnited KingdomFollow-up methodNon-inferiorityOnline assessmentStroke

Identifiers

PMID31262317
PMCPMC6604353
OpenAlexW2955737757

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.