Can we improve the statistical analysis of stroke trials? Statistical re-analysis of functional outcomes in stroke trials

Background: Most large acute stroke trials have been neutral. Functional outcome is usually analysed using a yes or no answer, e.g. death or dependency vs. independence. We assessed which statistical approaches are most efficient in analysing outcomes from stroke trials. Methods: Individual patient data from acute, rehabilitation and stroke unit trials studying the effects of interventions which alter functional outcome were assessed. Outcomes included modified Rankin Scale, Barthel Index, and ‘3 questions’. Data were analysed using a variety of approaches which compare two treatment groups. The results for each statistical test for each trial were then compared. Results: Data from 55 datasets were obtained (47 trials, 54,173 patients). The test results differed substantially so that approaches which use the ordered nature of functional outcome data (ordinal logistic regression, t-test, robust ranks test, bootstrapping the difference in mean rank) were more efficient statistically than those which collapse the data into 2 groups (chi square) (ANOVA p<0.001). The findings were consistent across different types and sizes of trial and for the different measures of functional outcome. Conclusions: When analysing functional outcome from stroke trials, statistical tests which use the original ordered data are more efficient and more likely to yield reliable results. Suitable approaches included ordinal logistic regression, t-test, and robust ranks test.

Can we improve the statistical analysis of stroke trials? Statistical reanalysis of functional outcomes in stroke trials

Background and Purpose—Most large acute stroke trials have been neutral. Functional outcome is usually analyzed using a yes or no answer, eg, death or dependency versus independence. We assessed which statistical approaches are most efficient in analyzing outcomes from stroke trials. Methods—Individual patient data from acute, rehabilitation and stroke unit trials studying the effects of interventions which alter functional outcome were assessed. Outcomes included modified Rankin Scale, Barthel Index, and “3 questions”. Data were analyzed using a variety of approaches which compare 2 treatment groups. The results for each statistical test for each trial were then compared. Results—Data from 55 datasets were obtained (47 trials, 54 173 patients). The test results differed substantially so that approaches which use the ordered nature of functional outcome data (ordinal logistic regression, t test, robust ranks test, bootstrapping the difference in mean rank) were more efficient statistically than those which collapse the data into 2 groups (2; ANOVA, P0.001). The findings were consistent across different types and sizes of trial and for the different measures of functional outcome. Conclusions—When analyzing functional outcome from stroke trials, statistical tests which use the original ordered data are more efficient and more likely to yield reliable results. Suitable approaches included ordinal logistic regression, test, and robust ranks test.

Speeding stroke recovery? A systematic review of amphetamine after stroke

Introduction: The use of drugs to enhance recovery (“rehabilitation pharmacology”) has been assessed. Amphetamine can improve outcome in experimental models of stroke, and several small clinical trials have assessed its use in stroke. Methods: Electronic searches were performed to identify randomised controlled trials of amphetamine in stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic). Outcomes included functional outcome (assessed as combined death or disability/dependency), safety (death) and haemodynamic measures. Data were analysed as dichotomous or continuous outcomes, using odds ratios (OR), weighted or standardised mean difference, (WMD or SMD) using random-effects models with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI); statistical heterogeneity was assessed. Results: Eleven completed trials (n=329) were identified. Treatment with amphetamine was associated with non-significant trends to increased death (OR 2.78 (95% CI, 0.75– 10.23), n=329, 11 trials) and improved motor scores (WMD 3.28 (95% CI −0.48–7.04) n=257, 9 trials) but had no effect on the combined outcome of death and dependency (OR 1.15 (95% CI 0.65–2.06, n=206, 5 trials). Amphetamine increased systolic blood pressure (WMD 9.3 mmHg, 95% CI 3.3–15.3, n=106, 3 trials) and heart rate (WMD 7.6 beats per minute (bpm), 95% CI 1.8–13.4, n=106, 3 trials). Despite variations in treatment regimes, outcomes and follow-up duration there was no evidence of significant heterogeneity or publication bias. Conclusion: No evidence exists at present to support the use of amphetamine after stroke. Despite a trend to improved motor function, doubts remain over