Assessing the Uptake of the Core Outcome Set in Randomized Controlled Trials for Stroke

Research output: Contribution to conferencePosterpeer-review

Abstract

Objective: To examine the uptake of recommended outcomes within stroke clinical trials, as outlined by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM).

Background: Considering the diverse backgrounds of stroke researchers throughout the globe, it is unsurprising that stroke clinical trials often report different outcomes.To address this heterogeneity in outcomes, core outcome sets (COS) have been developed that are specific to numerous medical fields. Containing recommendations for minimum standardized outcomes, COS aims to increase efficiency, reproducibility, and transparency in clinical trial results. The first patient-centered COS for stroke clinical trials was published by Salinas et al. in 2016. Therefore it is the aim of our study to measure the adoption of patient-centered outcomes as recommended by Salinas et al. in stroke clinical trials in the years since its inception.

Methods: A stroke-specific COS was identified by searching the COMET database. Stroke clinical trials from between 1/1/1991 and 6/26/2023 were pulled from ClinicalTrials.gov. A total of 93 studies were included in our final sample after applying the inclusion criteria described by Salinas et al. In a blind, duplicate fashion, two researchers (WC, PC) extracted outcomes for each included study from ClinicalTrials.gov database, an electronic clinical trial registry. The presence of an outcome was recorded as "yes" or "no" along with other trial characteristics such as phase, region of registry, before/after publication of COS, recruitment status, and type of intervention.

Results: were then analyzed via RStudio. Results The most reported outcomes across 93 included stroke clinical trials were "Ability to return to usual activities" (97.8%), "Mobility" (96.8%), and "Survival" (91.4%). Outcomes mentioned the least were "Adherence to smoking cessation advice" (0.0%), "Feeding" (0.0%), and "Fatigue" (1.1%). Overall 9-of-12 solely patient-reported outcomes were mentioned by less than half of clinical trialists.

Conclusion: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were reported at lower rates than outcomes involving clinician-reported sources, throughout our sample. The publication of Salinas et al. did not have a significant impact on the uptake of recommended outcomes. Because of the benefit of PROs, we recommend increased reporting of PROs in stroke clinical trials in accordance with the patient-centered COS published by Salinas et al.
Original languageAmerican English
StatePublished - 21 Jul 2023
Event7th Annual Joint Research Meeting: Biomedical, Biological, Neuroscience, Physiology, Forensics - Tandy Conference Center, Tulsa, United States
Duration: 21 Jul 202321 Jul 2023

Conference

Conference7th Annual Joint Research Meeting: Biomedical, Biological, Neuroscience, Physiology, Forensics
Abbreviated title7th Joint Annual Research Meeting
Country/TerritoryUnited States
CityTulsa
Period21/07/2321/07/23

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Assessing the Uptake of the Core Outcome Set in Randomized Controlled Trials for Stroke'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this