Rationale for Intervention and Dose Is Lacking in Stroke Recovery Trials: A Systematic Review

Karen Borschmann, Kathryn S Hayward, Audrey Raffelt, Leonid Churilov, Sharon Kramer, Julie Bernhardt, Karen Borschmann, Kathryn S Hayward, Audrey Raffelt, Leonid Churilov, Sharon Kramer, Julie Bernhardt

Abstract

Background: The ineffectiveness of most complex stroke recovery trials may be explained by inadequate intervention design. The primary aim of this review was to explore the rationales given for interventions and dose in stroke rehabilitation randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group library for RCTs that met the following criteria: (1) training based intervention; (2) >50% participants who were stroke survivors; (3) full peer-reviewed text; (4) English language. We extracted data on 16 quality items covering intervention dose (n= 3), trial design (n= 10), and risk of bias (n= 3) and 18 items related to trial method. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine whether (1) reporting of trial quality items changed over time; (2) reporting of quality items was associated with the likelihood of a positive trial, adjusted for sample size and number of outcomes.

Results: 27 Cochrane reviews were included, containing 9,044 participants from 194 trials. Publication dates were 1979 to 2013, sample size was median 32 (IQR 20,58), and primary outcome was reported in 49 trials (25%). The median total quality score was 4 (IQR 3,6) and improved significantly each year (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.07, 1.16, p<0.001). Total quality score was not associated with likelihood of a positive trial, but trials containing a biological rationale for the intervention were more likely to find a difference in patient outcome (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.14, 4.19, p=0.02).

Conclusion: To develop breakthrough treatments we need to build the rationale for research interventions and testing of intervention dosage. This will be achieved through a collective research agenda to understand the mechanistic principles that drive recovery and identification of clearer targets for clinical trials.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of identification and inclusion of Cochrane reviews and individual trials. Note. RCT= randomised controlled trial.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Dose schedule by intervention type Note. N in graph heading= number of trials that contained a report of this item. Type of intervention: ADL=activity of daily living, amb= balance or mobility, cog.= cognition or neglect, CV= cardiovascular or strength, motor= motor control, S & L= speech and language, and UL= upper limb.

References

    1. Kidwell C. S., Liebeskind D. S., Starkman S., Saver J. L. Trends in acute ischemic stroke trials through the 20th century. Stroke. 2001;32(6):1349–1359. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.32.6.1349.
    1. Mcintyre A., Richardson M., Janzen S., Hussein N., Teasell R. The evolution of stroke rehabilitation randomized controlled trials. International Journal of Stroke. 2014;9(6):789–792. doi: 10.1111/ijs.12272.
    1. Mayo N. E., Kaur N., Barbic S. P., et al. How have research questions and methods used in clinical trials published in Clinical Rehabilitation changed over the last 30 years? Clinical Rehabilitation. 2016;30(9):847–864. doi: 10.1177/0269215516658939.
    1. Fisher M., Feuerstein G., Howells D. W., et al. Update of the stroke therapy academic industry roundtable preclinical recommendations. Stroke. 2009;40(6):2244–2250. doi: 10.1161/strokeaha.108.541128.
    1. Schulz K. F., Chalmers L., Hayes R. J., Altman D. G. Empirical evidence of bias: Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1995;273(5):408–412. doi: 10.1001/jama.273.5.408.
    1. Hachinski V., Donnan G. A, Gorelick P. B, et al. Stroke: Working toward a prioritized world agenda. International Journal of Stroke. 2010;5(4):238–256.
    1. Bernhardt J., Borschmann K., Boyd L., et al. Moving rehabilitation research forward: Developing consensus statements for rehabilitation and recovery research. International Journal of Stroke. 2016;11(4):454–458. doi: 10.1177/1747493016643851.
    1. Cramer S. C., Wolf S. L., Adams H. P., et al. Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Research: Issues, Opportunities, and the National Institutes of Health StrokeNet. Stroke. 2017;48(3):813–819. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.015501.
    1. Dirnagl U. Thomas Willis Lecture: Is Translational Stroke Research Broken, and if So, How Can We Fix It? Stroke. 2016;47(8):2148–2153. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.013244.
    1. Begg C., Cho M., Eastwood S. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 1996;276(8):637–639. doi: 10.1001/jama.276.8.637.
    1. Thabane L., Ma J., Chu R., et al. A tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why and how. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2010;10, article 1 doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-1.
    1. Hoffmann T. C., Glasziou P. P., Boutron I., et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1687.g1687
    1. Craig P., Dieppe P., Macintyre S., Michie S., Nazareth I., Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2013;50(5):587–592. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.09.010.
    1. Campbell M., Fitzpatrick R., Haines A., et al. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. British Medical Journal. 2000;321(7262):694–696. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694.
    1. Page S. J., Schmid A., Harris J. E. Optimizing terminology for stroke motor rehabilitation: Recommendations from the american congress of rehabilitation medicine stroke movement interventions subcommittee. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2012;93(8):1395–1399. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.03.005.
    1. English C., Hillier S. L., Lynch E. A. Circuit class therapy for improving mobility after stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017;2017(6)
    1. Lohse K. R., Lang C. E., Boyd L. A. Is more better? Using metadata to explore dose-response relationships in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke. 2014;45(7):2053–2058. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.004695.
    1. Vloothuis J. D. M., Mulder M., Veerbeek J. M., et al. Caregiver-mediated exercises for improving outcomes after stroke. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016;12
    1. Lang C. E., Lohse K. R., Birkenmeier R. L. Dose and timing in neurorehabilitation: Prescribing motor therapy after stroke. Current Opinion in Neurology. 2015;28(6):549–555. doi: 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000256.
    1. Grefkes C., Fink G. R. Connectivity-based approaches in stroke and recovery of function. The Lancet Neurology. 2014;13(2):206–216. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70264-3.
    1. Basso D. M., Lang C. E. Consideration of Dose and Timing When Applying Interventions after Stroke and Spinal Cord Injury. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy. 2017;41:S24–S31. doi: 10.1097/NPT.0000000000000165.
    1. The AVERT Trial Collaboration group. Efficacy and safety of very early mobilisation within 24 h of stroke onset (AVERT): a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2015;386(9988):46–55. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60690-0.
    1. Walker M. F., Hoffmann T. C., Brady M. C., et al. Improving the development, monitoring and reporting of stroke rehabilitation research: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable. International Journal of Stroke. 2017;12(5):472–479. doi: 10.1177/1747493017711815.
    1. Moher D., Shamseer L., Clarke M. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews. 2015;4(1, article 1) doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.
    1. Nakagawa S. A farewell to Bonferroni: The problems of low statistical power and publication bias. Behavioral Ecology. 2004;15(6):1044–1045. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arh107.
    1. Landis J. R., Koch G. G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310.
    1. De Angelis C., Drazen J. M., Frizelle F. A., et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Stroke. 2005;36(4):924–925. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000162239.47724.c2.
    1. Biernaskie J., Chernenko G., Corbett D. Efficacy of Rehabilitative Experience Declines with Time after Focal Ischemic Brain Injury. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2004;24(5):1245–1254. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3834-03.2004.
    1. Jeffers M. S., Karthikeyan S., Gomez-Smith M., et al. Does Stroke Rehabilitation Really Matter? Part B: An Algorithm for Prescribing an Effective Intensity of Rehabilitation. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. 2018;32(1):73–83. doi: 10.1177/1545968317753074.
    1. Jeffers M. S., Karthikeyan S., Corbett D. Does Stroke Rehabilitation Really Matter? Part A: Proportional Stroke Recovery in the Rat. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. 2018;32(1):3–6. doi: 10.1177/1545968317751210.
    1. Bernhardt J., Hayward K. S., Kwakkel G., et al. Agreed definitions and a shared vision for new standards in stroke recovery research: The Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable taskforce. International Journal of Stroke. 2017;12(5):444–450. doi: 10.1177/1747493017711816.
    1. Lang C. E., Strube M. J., Bland M. D., et al. Dose response of task-specific upper limb training in people at least 6 months poststroke: a phase II, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Annals of Neurology. 2016;80(3):342–354. doi: 10.1002/ana.24734.
    1. Winstein C. J., Wolf S. L., Dromerick A. W., et al. Effect of a task-oriented rehabilitation program on upper extremity recovery following motor stroke: the ICARE randomized clinical trial. The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2016;315(6):571–581. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0276.
    1. Boyd L. A., Hayward K. S., Ward N. S., et al. Biomarkers of stroke recovery: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable. International Journal of Stroke. 2017;12(5):480–493. doi: 10.1177/1747493017714176.
    1. Kwakkel G., Lannin N. A., Borschmann K., et al. Standardized Measurement of Sensorimotor Recovery in Stroke Trials: Consensus-Based Core Recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. 2017;31(9):784–792. doi: 10.1177/1545968317732662.
    1. Corbett D., Carmichael S. T., Murphy T. H., et al. Enhancing the alignment of the preclinical and clinical stroke recovery research pipeline: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable translational working group. International Journal of Stroke. 2017;12(5):462–471. doi: 10.1177/1747493017711814.
    1. The ATTEND Collaborative Group. Family-led rehabilitation after stroke in India (ATTEND): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;390:588–599.
    1. Godecke E., Middleton S., Armstrong E., et al. Therapy fidelity and trial progress in the Very Early Rehabilitation in SpEech (VERSE) trial. International Journal of Stroke. 2017
    1. Wolf S. L., Dromerick A. W., Lane C. J., et al. ICARE primary results: A Phase III stroke rehabilitation trial. International Stroke Conference; 2014; Nashville. American Heart Association;

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel