医学
结果(博弈论)
冲程(发动机)
析因分析
临床试验
随机对照试验
急性中风
一致性(知识库)
物理疗法
重症监护医学
外科
内科学
几何学
数学
机械工程
组织纤溶酶原激活剂
数理经济学
工程类
作者
Pamela W. Duncan,Henrik Jørgensen,Derick T Wade
出处
期刊:Stroke
[Lippincott Williams & Wilkins]
日期:2000-06-01
卷期号:31 (6): 1429-1438
被引量:477
标识
DOI:10.1161/01.str.31.6.1429
摘要
Background —There is little consistency in the measurement of outcome in acute stroke trials, and this may complicate interpretation of the results and reduce the likelihood of detecting worthwhile drug effects. This study aims to investigate empirically the measures used to date and to give recommendations for future studies. Summary of Comment —A systematic review of all published randomized studies of acute stroke drug intervention was undertaken, and the measures used were recorded. Fifty-one studies involving 57 214 subjects were identified. These studies used 14 different measures of impairment, 11 different measures of activity, 1 measure of “quality of life,” and 8 miscellaneous other measures. Timing of outcome assessments varied from 1 week to 1 year, with the modal time being 3 months. Many studies used ordinal measures but dichotomized results for analysis. Of the 51 studies included in the review, only 21 demonstrated benefit with the defined primary outcome measure. In several studies, however, post hoc analysis using varied outcome measures or varied cut points for dichotomizing outcomes resulted in positive results, whereas the primary study analysis failed to do so. Conclusions —There is no consensus on the level of outcome to be used, the method of measurement to be used, or the most appropriate timing of the assessment. It is recommended that future studies should include extended/instrumental activities and advanced mobility as components of the primary outcome measure, with outcome assessment being undertaken at 6 months. New initiatives in developing stroke-specific outcomes may address some of the current problems in the assessment of stroke outcomes
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI