Trial reportTrials2024
Accuracy of healthcare systems data for identifying cardiovascular outcomes after stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage in the United Kingdom.
Trial report in Trials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare systems data (HCSD) could improve the efficiency of clinical trials, but their accuracy and validity are uncertain. Our objective was to assess the accuracy of HCSD as the sole method of outcome detection in the REstart or STop Antithrombotics Randomised Trial (RESTART; ISRCTN71907627) compared with adjudicated questionnaire follow-up and compare estimates of treatment effect.
methodsRESTART was a prospective, open, assessor-blind, parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) of antiplatelet therapy after intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) in the UK. We included 496 (92%) of 537 RESTART participants, who were resident in England or Scotland at randomisation. Computerised randomisation incorporating minimisation allocated participants (1:1) to start or avoid antiplatelet therapy. RESTART used annual questionnaires to detect its primary outcome (recurrent ICH) and secondary outcome (a composite of haemorrhagic or ischemic major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]) over a median of 2.0 years; an independent adjudication committee verified outcomes using medical records and brain imaging. We obtained ICD10-coded HCSD on hospital admissions and deaths in England and Scotland to identify primary and secondary outcomes. We compared HCSD with a reference standard of adjudicated outcomes. We estimated the effects of antiplatelet therapy using HCSD alone in a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for minimisation variables.
resultsIn the original RESTART trial, 31 people experienced a primary outcome event. HCSD had sensitivity of 84% (95% CI 66 to 95%) and positive predictive value of 68% (51 to 82%) for recurrent ICH. HCSD estimated an effect of antiplatelet therapy (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.98; p = 0.044) that was almost identical to adjudicated outcomes (aHR 0.51, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.03; p = 0.060). HCSD had sensitivity of 84% (76 to 91%) and positive predictive value of 78% (69 to 85%) for MACE, on which HCSD estimated an effect of antiplatelet therapy (aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.16; p = 0.247) that was similar to adjudicated outcomes (aHR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.95; p = 0.025).
conclusionsIn a RCT of antiplatelet therapy for people with ICH, HCSD was reasonably accurate and provided similar estimates of treatment effect compared with adjudicated outcomes.
trial registrationISRCTN71907627 . Registered on 25 April 2013.
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.