Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37837348›Full record

ArticleNeurorehabilitation and neural repair2024

Control intervention design for preclinical and clinical trials: Consensus-based core recommendations from the third Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable.

Kathryn S Hayward, Emily J Dalton, Jessica Barth, Marian Brady, Leora R Cherney, Leonid Churilov, Andrew N Clarkson, Jesse Dawson, Sean P Dukelow, Peter Feys and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Neurorehabilitation and neural repair, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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.

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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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

13 authors at 11 institutions in 6 countries.

Kathryn S HaywardThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5240-3264
Emily J DaltonThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3920-8530
Jessica BarthProvidence VA Medical Center, Providence, RI, USA.
Marian BradyGlasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4589-7021
Leora R CherneyShirley Ryan AbilityLab, Chicago, IL, USA.
Leonid ChurilovThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Andrew N ClarksonUniversity of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Jesse DawsonUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7532-2475
Sean P DukelowUniversity of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Peter FeysReval University of Hasselt, Hasselt, Belgium.
Maree HackettUniversity of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1211-9087
Steve R ZeilerJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Catherine E LangWashington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7120-0136
The University of Melbourne · AUGlasgow Caledonian University · GBHasselt University · BEJohns Hopkins University · USProvidence VA Medical Center · USShirley Ryan AbilityLab · USUniversity of Calgary · CAUniversity of Glasgow · GBUniversity of Otago · NZUNSW Sydney · AUWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Control comparator selection is a critical trial design issue. Preclinical and clinical investigators who are doing trials of stroke recovery and rehabilitation interventions must carefully consider the appropriateness and relevance of their chosen control comparator as the benefit of an experimental intervention is established relative to a comparator. Establishing a strong rationale for a selected comparator improves the integrity of the trial and validity of its findings. This Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable (SRRR) taskforce used a graph theory voting system to rank the importance and ease of addressing challenges during control comparator design. "Identifying appropriate type of control" was ranked easy to address and very important, "variability in usual care" was ranked hard to address and of low importance, and "understanding the content of the control and how it differs from the experimental intervention" was ranked very important but not easy to address. The CONtrol DeSIGN (CONSIGN) decision support tool was developed to address the identified challenges and enhance comparator selection, description, and reporting. CONSIGN is a web-based tool inclusive of seven steps that guide the user through control comparator design. The tool was refined through multiple rounds of pilot testing that included more than 130 people working in neurorehabilitation research. Four hypothetical exemplar trials, which span preclinical, mood, aphasia, and motor recovery, demonstrate how the tool can be applied in practice. Six consensus recommendations are defined that span research domains, professional disciplines, and international borders.

Indexed as

Neurological RehabilitationStrokeStroke RehabilitationClinical Trials as TopicHumansRehabilitation ResearchClinical trialconsensuscontrolpreclinicalrecoveryrehabilitationstroke

Identifiers

PMID37837348
PMCPMC10798031
OpenAlexW4387642470

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.