| 1. |
- Rannikmäe, K., et al.
(författare)
-
Reliability of intracerebral hemorrhage classification systems: A systematic review
- 2016
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Stroke. - : SAGE Publications. - 1747-4930 .- 1747-4949. ; 11:6, s. 626-636
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Accurately distinguishing non-traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) subtypes is important since they may have different risk factors, causal pathways, management, and prognosis. We systematically assessed the inter- and intra-rater reliability of ICH classification systems. Methods: We sought all available reliability assessments of anatomical and mechanistic ICH classification systems from electronic databases and personal contacts until October 2014. We assessed included studies’ characteristics, reporting quality and potential for bias; summarized reliability with kappa value forest plots; and performed meta-analyses of the proportion of cases classified into each subtype. Summary of review: We included 8 of 2152 studies identified. Inter- and intra-rater reliabilities were substantial to perfect for anatomical and mechanistic systems (inter-rater kappa values: anatomical 0.78–0.97 [six studies, 518 cases], mechanistic 0.89–0.93 [three studies, 510 cases]; intra-rater kappas: anatomical 0.80–1 [three studies, 137 cases], mechanistic 0.92–0.93 [two studies, 368 cases]). Reporting quality varied but no study fulfilled all criteria and none was free from potential bias. All reliability studies were performed with experienced raters in specialist centers. Proportions of ICH subtypes were largely consistent with previous reports suggesting that included studies are appropriately representative. Conclusions: Reliability of existing classification systems appears excellent but is unknown outside specialist centers with experienced raters. Future reliability comparisons should be facilitated by studies following recently published reporting guidelines. © 2016, © 2016 World Stroke Organization.
|
|
| 2. |
- Berge, Eivind, et al.
(författare)
-
Methods to improve patient recruitment and retention in stroke trials
- 2016
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Stroke. - : SAGE Publications. - 1747-4930 .- 1747-4949. ; 11:6, s. 663-676
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The success of randomized-controlled stroke trials is dependent on the recruitment and retention of a sufficient number of patients, but fewer than half of all trials meet their target number of patients. Methods: We performed a search and review of the literature, and conducted a survey and workshop among 56 European stroke trialists, to identify barriers, suggest methods to improve recruitment and retention, and make a priority list of interventions that merit further evaluation. Results: The survey and workshop identified a number of barriers to patient recruitment and retention, from patients’ incapacity to consent, to handicaps that prevent patients from participation in trial-specific follow-up. Methods to improve recruitment and retention may include simple interventions with individual participants, funding of research networks, and reimbursement of new treatments by health services only when delivered within clinical trials. The literature review revealed that few methods have been formally evaluated. The top five priorities for evaluation identified in the workshop were as follows: short and illustrated patient information leaflets, nonwritten consent, reimbursement for new interventions only within a study, and monetary incentives to institutions taking part in research (for recruitment); and involvement of patient groups, remote and central follow-up, use of mobile devices, and reminders to patients about their consent to participate (for retention). Conclusions: Many interventions have been used with the aim of improving recruitment and retention of patients in stroke studies, but only a minority has been evaluated. We have identified methods that could be tested, and propose that such evaluations may be nested within on-going clinical trials.
|
|
