This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wardlaw, J. M. Articles by Lindley, R. I. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wardlaw, J. M. Articles by Lindley, R. I. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Stroke Related Collections Emergency treatment of Stroke Thrombolysis

(Stroke. 2000;31:1133.)
© 2000 American Heart Association, Inc.

Original Contributions

Trials of Thrombolysis in Acute Ischemic Stroke

Does the Choice of Primary Outcome Measure Really Matter?

J. M. Wardlaw, FRCR, FRCP, MD; P. A. G. Sandercock, FRCP, MD; C. P. Warlow, FRCP, MD R. I. Lindley, MRCP, MD

From the Department of Clinical Neurosciences, The University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Crewe Road, Edinburgh, UK.

Correspondence to Dr J.M. Wardlaw, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, The University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Crewe Road, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK. E-mail jmw{at}skull.dcn.ed.ac.uk

Background and Purpose—Controversy regarding the risks and benefits of thrombolysis has not been helped by the perception that some trials were "positive" and others "negative" on their primary outcome measure of either "good" or "poor" functional outcome. We wondered whether the definition of good or poor functional outcome might have contributed to this perception, and what effect altering the definition might have on the individual trials and on the systematic review of all the trials combined.

Methods—We analyzed data on functional outcome, extracted from the randomized trials of thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke, according to good (modified Rankin scale scores of 0 to 1 versus 2 to 6) and poor (modified Rankin 0 to 2 versus 3 to 6) functional outcome, to determine the effects of thrombolysis.

Results—Twelve trials (4342 patients, treated up to 6 hours after stroke) contributed to this analysis. Overall, there was no difference in the estimate of treatment effect between the 2 definitions (modified Rankin 0 to 2 versus 3 to 6, and 0 to 1 versus 2 to 6 [ORs 0.83 and 0.79, respectively]). However, the apparent "success" of several individual trials did alter.

Conclusions—We should not place undue emphasis on the results of individual trials, when a change of a single point on the Rankin scale can make the difference between "success" and "failure." Overall, by either analysis, there was a significant benefit in patients treated with thrombolysis up to 6 hours after stroke.

Key Words: cerebral infarction • meta-analysis • stroke, acute • thrombolytic therapy • treatment outcome

This article has been cited by other articles:

				The Optimising Analysis of Stroke Trials (OAST) Co Can We Improve the Statistical Analysis of Stroke Trials?: Statistical Reanalysis of Functional Outcomes in Stroke Trials * OAST Supplemental Appendix I: Statistical Tests Compared (see Table I) * OAST Supplemental Appendix II: Supplementary Analyses * OAST Supplemental Appendix III: Trial Data (see Tables II and III) * OAST Supplemental Appendix IV: Results (see Table IV) Stroke, June 1, 2007; 38(6): 1911 - 1915. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. J. Gladstone and S. E. Black Update on intravenous tissue plasminogen activator for acute stroke: from clinical trials to clinical practice Can. Med. Assoc. J., August 1, 2001; 165(3): 311 - 317. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. W. Dromerick, D. F. Edwards, and M. Hahn Does the Application of Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy During Acute Rehabilitation Reduce Arm Impairment After Ischemic Stroke? Stroke, December 1, 2000; 31(12): 2984 - 2988. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]