Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Stroke
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Stroke. 2007;38:3055-3062
Published online before print October 4, 2007, doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.488536
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
38/11/3055    most recent
STROKEAHA.107.488536v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Saver, J. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Saver, J. L.
Related Collections
Right arrow Health policy and outcome research
Right arrow Acute Cerebral Infarction
Right arrow Emergency treatment of Stroke
Right arrow Neuroprotectors
Right arrow Thrombolysis

(Stroke. 2007;38:3055.)
© 2007 American Heart Association, Inc.


Comments, Opinions, and Reviews

Novel End Point Analytic Techniques and Interpreting Shifts Across the Entire Range of Outcome Scales in Acute Stroke Trials

Jeffrey L. Saver, MD

From Stroke Center and Department of Neurology, David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, Calif.

Correspondence to Jeffrey L. Saver, MD, UCLA Stroke Center, 710 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90095. E-mail jsaver{at}ucla.edu

Background and Purpose— Stroke treatments are generally not curative, but rather alter patient outcome over the entire range of functional measures. Dichotomizing outcome scales reduces computational complexity, but discards substantial outcome information, artificially privileges only a single health state transition as clinically meaningful, and often reduces study power. Newer approaches to endpoint analysis have several advantageous properties.

Summary of Review— The global statistic assesses treatment effects on multiple outcome measures simultaneously. However, translating the global statistic multidimensional vector effect at the population level into benefit or harm expected in the individual patient is problematic. Responder analysis adjusts outcome thresholds to patient stroke severity at study entry, identifying achievable goals for each patient. However, responder analysis still discards substantial outcome information. Shift analysis gauges change in outcome distributions over the full range of ascertained outcomes, incorporating benefit and harm at all health state transitions valued by patients and clinicians, and often increasing study power. Translation of findings of shift analyses into clinically accessible terms may be accomplished using the recently developed joint outcome table specification technique, which yields the following values for the number needed to treat for 1 patient to improve in a clinically important manner: nimodipine in subarachnoid hemorrhage, 6.8; coiling over clipping, 5.9; intra-arterial pro-urokinase in acute cerebral ischemia, 4.8; intravenous tissue plasminogen activator, 3.3.

Conclusions— Dichotomized, global statistic, responder, and shift analyses each offer distinctive benefits and drawbacks. Choice of primary end point analytic technique should be tailored to the study population, expected treatment response, and study purpose. Shift analysis generally provides the most comprehensive index of a treatment’s clinical impact.


Key Words: cerebral hemorrhage • cerebral infarction • cerebrovascular accident • clinical trials • research design




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
StrokeHome page
K. T. Kreiter, S. A. Mayer, G. Howard, V. Knappertz, D. Ilodigwe, M. A. Sloan, and R. L. Macdonald
Sample Size Estimates for Clinical Trials of Vasospasm in Subarachnoid Hemorrhage
Stroke, July 1, 2009; 40(7): 2362 - 2367.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
StrokeHome page
J. L. Saver, J. Gornbein, J. Grotta, D. Liebeskind, H. Lutsep, L. Schwamm, P. Scott, and S. Starkman
Number Needed to Treat to Benefit and to Harm for Intravenous Tissue Plasminogen Activator Therapy in the 3- to 4.5-Hour Window: Joint Outcome Table Analysis of the ECASS 3 Trial
Stroke, July 1, 2009; 40(7): 2433 - 2437.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
StrokeHome page
M. G. Lansberg, M. Schrooten, E. Bluhmki, V. N. Thijs, and J. L. Saver
Treatment Time-Specific Number Needed to Treat Estimates for Tissue Plasminogen Activator Therapy in Acute Stroke Based on Shifts Over the Entire Range of the Modified Rankin Scale
Stroke, June 1, 2009; 40(6): 2079 - 2084.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
StrokeHome page
P. Mandava and T. A. Kent
A Method to Determine Stroke Trial Success Using Multidimensional Pooled Control Functions
Stroke, May 1, 2009; 40(5): 1803 - 1810.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
StrokeHome page
A. G. Rudd and L. S. Williams
Advances in Health Policy and Outcomes
Stroke, May 1, 2009; 40(5): e301 - e304.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
NeurologyHome page
J. L. Saver and J. Gornbein
Treatment effects for which shift or binary analyses are advantageous in acute stroke trials
Neurology, April 14, 2009; 72(15): 1310 - 1315.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]