ArticleCerebrovascular diseases (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Barriers and Facilitators to Intracerebral Haemorrhage Platform Trial Recruitment: A Survey of Stroke Clinicians.
Article in Cerebrovascular diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPlatform trials are an efficient trial design which enables testing of multiple interventions simultaneously. They could advance knowledge of treatments for intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH). We aimed to investigate the views of clinicians involved in stroke research on recruitment to a future platform trial for ICH.
methodsBetween April and July 2025, we conducted a UK-wide online survey of clinicians actively involved in stroke research using convenience sampling through professional organisations. Participants considered factors related to the consent process and research environment and could provide optional free text responses about additional barriers or facilitators to recruitment. We used descriptive statistics for quantitative data and content analysis for qualitative data.
resultsAmong 73 respondents, 46 (63%) were female, 36 (49%) were stroke physicians, 24 (33%) nurses, 6 (8%) allied health professionals, and 7 (10%) were in other roles. A total of 35 (48%) had >20 years' clinical experience, 44 (60%) reported spending <10% of their role in research. 66 (90%) thought that a platform trial would be a good option for testing interventions for patients with stroke due to ICH. Across 11 modifiable factors, clinicians most frequently rated the perceived importance of the research question and a research-positive culture in the clinical team as facilitators of recruitment (both 92%), while clinician preference for specific treatments was most frequently rated as a barrier (48%). Two themes emerged from free text responses: study design and infrastructure. Regarding study design, respondents perceived consent procedures (n = 9), study materials (n = 8), study procedures (n = 8), eligibility assessment (n = 6), the research question (n = 3), and randomisation (n = 3) as important for a future platform trial. Regarding infrastructure, emergent factors were staffing (n = 17), local research culture and capacity (n = 9), research governance and delivery (n = 6), and training (n = 6).
conclusionThe overwhelming majority of respondents from the UK clinical stroke community supported a platform trial for ICH, although the influence of survey responder bias is unknown.
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.