ReviewTranslational stroke research2020
Recruiting Control Participants into Stroke Biomarker Studies.
Review in Translational stroke research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Astrocyte Dysfunction Reflected in Ischemia-Induced Astrocyte-Derived Extracellular Vesicles: A Pilot Study on Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- GFAP as Astrocyte-Derived Extracellular Vesicle Cargo in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients-A Pilot Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Elevation of astrocyte-derived extracellular vesicles over the first month post-stroke in humans.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Expansion of plasma MicroRNAs over the first month following human stroke.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2023Article
- Methods for Stratification and Validation Cohorts: A Scoping Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The number of scientists using -omics technologies to investigate biomarkers with the potential to gauge risk and aid in the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of stroke continues to rise, yet there are few resources to aid investigators in recruiting control participants. In this review, we describe two major strategies to match control participants to a stroke cohort-propensity score matching and one-to-one matching-including statistical approaches to gauge the balance between groups. We then explore the advantages and disadvantages of traditional recruitment methods including approaching spouses of enrolled stroke participants, direct recruitment from clinics, community outreach events, approaching retirement communities, and buying samples from a 3rd party vendor. Newer methods to identify controls by screening the electronic health record and using an online screening questionnaire are also described. Finally, we cover compensation for control participants and special considerations. The hope is that this review will serve as a roadmap whereby an investigator can successfully tailor their control recruitment strategy to the research question at hand and the local research environment. While this review is focused on blood-based biomarker studies, the principles will apply to investigators studying a broad range of biological materials.
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.