4.7 Article

Seven-Day NIHSS Is a Sensitive Outcome Measure for Exploratory Clinical Trials in Acute Stroke Evidence From the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive

期刊

STROKE
卷 43, 期 5, 页码 1401-+

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.644484

关键词

clinical trials; stroke management; thrombolysis

资金

  1. Wyeth/Pfizer
  2. JJ

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-Clinical trials in stroke typically measure outcome after 90 days. Earlier outcome assessment would reduce costs and may increase power. We aimed to compare the sensitivity of 4 end points (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] at 30 and 90 days, and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) at 7 and 90 days, analyzed as ordinal measures) to detect the established treatment effect of recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (rtPA). Methods-Within the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive, we compared rtPA-treated patients with untreated control subjects using a multiple resampling approach. From our total sample we drew 10 000 random samples of unique patients, constraining the sample sizes in treated and untreated groups to be equal. In each of these samples we tested for the treatment effect of rtPA by each of the 4 studied end points. The percentage of samples yielding significant results approximates the power of each end point at a given sample size. This process was repeated across a range of sample sizes, to determine the relationship between sample size and power for each of the 4 end points. Results-For our 4 end points of mRS at 30 and 90 days, and NIHSS at 7 and 90 days the smallest sample sizes required to generate statistical power > 80% were 620, 480, 370, and 420, respectively, making 7-day NIHSS the most sensitive end point. These results were supported by dichotomized analyses. Conclusions-Seven-day NIHSS score appears a sensitive end point that should be validated in randomized trial datasets for use in exploratory stroke trials. (Stroke. 2012;43:1401-1403.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据