ArticleJAMA network open2024
Disability and Recurrent Stroke Among Participants in Stroke Prevention Trials.
Article in JAMA network open, 2024. 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.
- Preferences for advance care planning services among patients with recurrent stroke: a discrete choice experiment.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Residual inflammatory risk in ischemic stroke: incremental prognostic value of MHR and NPAR beyond the Essen stroke risk score.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- Analysis of factors influencing recurrent stroke due to symptomatic non-acute middle cerebral artery occlusion and prediction modelling.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- Associations of Estimated Glucose Disposal Rate With Stroke Risk and Poststroke Adverse Outcomes: A Prospective Cohort Study.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2025Article
- Economic value of extended-window intravenous alteplase in posterior circulation stroke: a Markov analysis based on the EXPECTS trial.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Metoclopramide, Paracetamol, and Ceftriaxone for the Prevention of Infections and Fever in Elderly Patients with Acute Stroke.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Stroke secondary prevention trials have disproportionately enrolled participants with mild or no disability. The impact of this bias remains unclear. Objective: To investigate the association between poststroke disability and the rate of recurrent stroke during long-term follow up. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study is a post hoc analysis of the Prevention Regimen For Effectively Avoiding Second Strokes (PRoFESS) and Insulin Resistance Intervention After Stroke (IRIS) secondary prevention clinical trial datasets. PRoFESS enrolled patients from 2003 to 2008, and IRIS enrolled patients from 2005 to 2015. Data were analyzed from September 23, 2023, to May 16, 2024. Exposure: The exposure was poststroke functional status at study baseline, defined as modified Rankin Scale (mRS; range, 0-5; higher score indicates more disability) score of 0 vs 1 to 2 vs 3 or greater. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was recurrent stroke. The secondary outcome was major cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction, new or worsening heart failure, or vascular death. Results: A total of 20 183 PRoFESS participants (mean [SD] age, 66.1 [8.5] years; 12 931 [64.1%] male) and 3265 IRIS participants (mean [SD] age, 62.7 [10.6] years; 2151 [65.9%] male) were included. The median (IQR) follow-up was 2.4 (1.9-3.0) years in PRoFESS and 4.7 (3.2-5.0) years in IRIS. In PRoFESS, the recurrent stroke rate was 7.2%, among patients with an mRS of 0, 8.7% among patients with an mRS of 1 or 2, and 10.6% among patients with an mRS of 3 or greater (χ22 = 27.1; P < .001); in IRIS the recurrent stroke rate was 6.4% among patients with an mRS of 0, 9.0% among patients with an mRS of 1 or 2, and 11.7% among patients with an mRS of 3 or greater (χ22 = 11.1; P < .001). The MACE rate was 10.1% among patients with an mRS of 0, 12.2% among patients with an mRS of 1 or 2, and 17.2% among patients with an mRS of 3 or greater (χ22 = 103.4; P < .001) in PRoFESS and 10.9% among patients with an mRS of 0, 13.3% among patients with an mRS of 1 or 2, and 15.3% among patients with an mRS of 3 or greater (χ22 = 5.8; P = .06) in IRIS. Compared with patients with an mRS of 0, patients with an mRS of 3 or greater had increased hazard for recurrent stroke in PRoFESS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.63; 95% CI, 1.38-1.92; P < .001) and in IRIS (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.28-2.86; P = .002). There was also increased hazard for MACE in PRoFESS (HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.66-2.18; P < .001) and in IRIS (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.03-2.03; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that higher baseline poststroke disability was associated with increased rates of recurrent stroke and MACE. Including more patients with greater baseline disability in stroke prevention trials may improve the statistical power and generalizability of these studies.
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.