This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 38/6/1911    most recent STROKEAHA.106.474080v1 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 Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Stroke Related Collections Health policy and outcome research

(Stroke. 2007;38:1911.)
© 2007 American Heart Association, Inc.

Original Contributions

Can We Improve the Statistical Analysis of Stroke Trials?

Statistical Reanalysis of Functional Outcomes in Stroke Trials

The Optimising Analysis of Stroke Trials (OAST) Collaboration

From the Division of Stroke Medicine (P.M.W.B., L.J.G.), University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK; and the Medical Statistics Unit (T.C., S.P.), London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Correspondence to Prof Philip M.W. Bath, Division of Stroke Medicine, University of Nottingham, D Floor, South Block, Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2UH UK. E-mail philip.bath{at}nottingham.ac.uk

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, P<0.001). 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, t test, and robust ranks test.

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)

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. W. Miller and Y. Y. Palesch Comments Regarding the Recent OAST Article Stroke, January 1, 2008; 39(1): e14 - e14. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. M.W. Bath and L. J. Gray Response to Letter by Miller and Palesch Stroke, January 1, 2008; 39(1): e15 - e15. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. L. Saver Novel End Point Analytic Techniques and Interpreting Shifts Across the Entire Range of Outcome Scales in Acute Stroke Trials Stroke, November 1, 2007; 38(11): 3055 - 3062. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]