Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Stroke
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Published Online
on September 25, 2008

Stroke. 2008
Published online before print September 25, 2008, doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.525584
A more recent version of this article appeared on December 1, 2008
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
39/12/3431    most recent
STROKEAHA.108.525584v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Johnston, S. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Johnston, S. C.
Related Collections
Right arrow Health policy and outcome research

Submitted on May 12, 2008
Revised on June 10, 2008
Accepted on June 12, 2008

The 2008 William M. Feinberg Lecture. Prioritizing Stroke Research

S. Claiborne Johnston MD, PhD*

From the Neurovascular Service, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, Calif.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: clay.johnston{at}ucsfmedctr.org.

Abstract—Stroke is a tremendous burden to health worldwide both in the developed and developing world. Current levels of research funding do not adequately reflect this burden, particularly when expected increases in stroke rates are considered. Of course, an investment in stroke research is only justified if a return can be expected. The ultimate goal of stroke research is to reduce the burden of disease, and clinical trials are the clearest expression of the value of research because their results can directly impact health. In a review of stroke trials funded by the US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, we found that the overall impact of the trials was dramatically positive and justified the entire research budget of the Institute. Nonetheless, there were obvious opportunities for improvement. Methods for selecting trials to fund could be improved and better aligned with disease burden and potential impact. Furthermore, clinical trial costs are increasing rapidly and reversing this trend must be a priority. More creative and systematic approaches to defining the research agenda and enhancing trial methods could substantially accelerate the rate of discovery and increase the impact of those discoveries on public health. To get there, we desperately need more research on research—meta-research—on topics not just relevant to stroke, but to the study of all disease.


Key words: cost of illness • health policy • research impact • resource allocation • stroke care