Trial reportBMC medicine2019
A multi-centre, UK-based, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of 4 follow-up assessment methods in stroke survivors.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Remote collection of physical performance measures for older people: a systematic review.Age and ageing · 2023Pooled it
- Can patient-reported outcome measures predict mortality in neurological populations? A systematic review.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- Cost-Utility Analysis of TAVI Versus Surgery in Low-Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis in the UK.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Article
- The Use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) 6 Months Post-Stroke and Their Association with the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) on Admission to Hospital.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Management of frailty under COVID-19 pandemic in Japan.Global health & medicine · 2021Review
- Rates, risks and routes to reduce vascular dementia (R4vad), a UK-wide multicentre prospective observational cohort study of cognition after stroke: Protocol.European stroke journal · 2021Article
- A single patient reported outcome measure for acquired brain injury, multiple sclerosis & Parkinson's disease.PloS one · 2021Article
- Research with older people in a world with COVID-19: identification of current and future priorities, challenges and opportunities.Age and ageing · 2020Review
- Psychosocial Sequelae of Stroke in Working-Age Adults: A Pilot Study.The Journal of neuroscience nursing : journal of the American Association of Neuroscience Nurses · 2020Article
- Morbidity Prevalence Estimate at 6 Months Following a Stroke: Protocol for a Cohort Study.JMIR research protocols · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.