BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recruitment rate is a major determinant of the duration, cost, and feasibility of acute stroke trials. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of all randomized, controlled trials of > or =300 subjects that were designed to evaluate the efficacy of a medical intervention for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke. Data about trial recruitment, organization, and inclusion/exclusion criteria were abstracted independently by 2 reviewers who applied predefined criteria. Recruitment efficiency was defined as the number of subjects enrolled per study center per month of recruitment. RESULTS: Of 32 trials meeting inclusion criteria, the average recruitment efficiency was 0.79 subjects per center per month (range 0.08 to 3.7). Recruitment efficiency did not vary by geographic region (P=0.36), but trials conducted in 1 country had more efficient recruitment than international studies (P=0.03), and recruitment efficiency declined with each percentage increase in the total number of study centers (P=0.002). The primary study entry criteria that predicted reduced recruitment efficiency were the maximum allowable time from stroke to study enrollment (P=0.002) and the exclusion of mild strokes (P=0.009). Trials with a treatment window >6 hours had approximately double the recruitment rates of trials that used treatment windows < or =6 hours (1.03 versus 0.52 patients per center per month). CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment rates for acute stroke trials are influenced by organizational structure and study entry criteria. Characterizing predictors of recruitment may help optimize future trial design.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recruitment rate is a major determinant of the duration, cost, and feasibility of acute stroke trials. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of all randomized, controlled trials of > or =300 subjects that were designed to evaluate the efficacy of a medical intervention for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke. Data about trial recruitment, organization, and inclusion/exclusion criteria were abstracted independently by 2 reviewers who applied predefined criteria. Recruitment efficiency was defined as the number of subjects enrolled per study center per month of recruitment. RESULTS: Of 32 trials meeting inclusion criteria, the average recruitment efficiency was 0.79 subjects per center per month (range 0.08 to 3.7). Recruitment efficiency did not vary by geographic region (P=0.36), but trials conducted in 1 country had more efficient recruitment than international studies (P=0.03), and recruitment efficiency declined with each percentage increase in the total number of study centers (P=0.002). The primary study entry criteria that predicted reduced recruitment efficiency were the maximum allowable time from stroke to study enrollment (P=0.002) and the exclusion of mild strokes (P=0.009). Trials with a treatment window >6 hours had approximately double the recruitment rates of trials that used treatment windows < or =6 hours (1.03 versus 0.52 patients per center per month). CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment rates for acute stroke trials are influenced by organizational structure and study entry criteria. Characterizing predictors of recruitment may help optimize future trial design.
Authors: James R Carey; Diane M Chappuis; Marsha J Finkelstein; Kate L Frost; Lynette K Leuty; Allison L McNulty; Lars I E Oddsson; Erin M Seifert; Teresa J Kimberley Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2017-03-01
Authors: An-Wen Chan; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Peter C Gøtzsche; Douglas G Altman; Howard Mann; Jesse A Berlin; Kay Dickersin; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Kenneth F Schulz; Wendy R Parulekar; Karmela Krleza-Jeric; Andreas Laupacis; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-01-08
Authors: Opeolu Adeoye; Arthur Pancioli; Jane Khoury; Charles J Moomaw; Pamela Schmit; Irene Ewing; Kathleen Alwell; Matthew L Flaherty; Daniel Woo; Simona Ferioli; Pooja Khatri; Joseph P Broderick; Brett M Kissela; Dawn Kleindorfer Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2011-04-03 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Susan T Crowley; Glenn M Chertow; Joseph Vitale; Theresa O'Connor; Jane Zhang; Roland M H Schein; Devasmita Choudhury; Kevin Finkel; Anitha Vijayan; Emil Paganini; Paul M Palevsky Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2008-04-02 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Merran Toerien; Sara T Brookes; Chris Metcalfe; Isabel de Salis; Zelda Tomlin; Tim J Peters; Jonathan Sterne; Jenny L Donovan Journal: Trials Date: 2009-07-10 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Kelsey A Potter-Baker; Corin E Bonnett; Patrick Chabra; Sarah Roelle; Nicole Varnerin; David A Cunningham; Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian; Svetlana Pundik; Adriana B Conforto; Andre Machado; Ela B Plow Journal: J Neurol Sci Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 3.181
Authors: Alexa N Richie; Jorge Trejo; Christian G Bowers; Rebecca B McNeil; Dale M Gamble; Sothear H Luke; Robert D Brown; Thomas G Brott; Brett M Kissela; Bradford B Worrall; James F Meschia Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2009 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Enrique C Leira; Azeemuddin Ahmed; Diane L Lamb; Heena M Olalde; R Charles Callison; James C Torner; Harold P Adams Journal: Stroke Date: 2009-01-08 Impact factor: 7.914