Trial reportStroke2022
Brief Consent Methods Enable Rapid Enrollment in Acute Stroke Trial: Results From the TICH-2 Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Stroke, 2022. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Barriers and Facilitators to Intracerebral Haemorrhage Platform Trial Recruitment: A Survey of Stroke Clinicians.Cerebrovascular diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Enhancing Enrollment in Acute Stroke Trials: Current State and Consensus Recommendations.Stroke · 2023Review
- Effect of proximal blood flow arrest during endovascular thrombectomy (ProFATE): Study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial.European stroke journal · 2023Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors at 20 institutions in 12 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeeking consent rapidly in acute stroke trials is crucial as interventions are time sensitive. We explored the association between consent pathways and time to enrollment in the TICH-2 (Tranexamic Acid in Intracerebral Haemorrhage-2) randomized controlled trial.
methodsConsent was provided by patients or by a relative or an independent doctor in incapacitated patients, using a 1-stage (full written consent) or 2-stage (initial brief consent followed by full written consent post-randomization) approach. The computed tomography-to-randomization time according to consent pathways was compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify variables associated with onset-to-randomization time of ≤3 hours.
resultsOf 2325 patients, 817 (35%) gave self-consent using 1-stage (557; 68%) or 2-stage consent (260; 32%). For 1507 (65%), consent was provided by a relative (1 stage, 996 [66%]; 2 stage, 323 [21%]) or a doctor (all 2-stage, 188 [12%]). One patient did not record prerandomization consent, with written consent obtained subsequently. The median (interquartile range) computed tomography-to-randomization time was 55 (38-93) minutes for doctor consent, 55 (37-95) minutes for 2-stage patient, 69 (43-110) minutes for 2-stage relative, 75 (48-124) minutes for 1-stage patient, and 90 (56-155) minutes for 1-stage relative consents (
conclusionsThe use of initial brief consent was associated with shorter times to enrollment, while maintaining good participant retention. Seeking written consent from relatives was associated with significant delays. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.isrctn.com; Unique identifier: ISRCTN93732214.
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.