Evidence mapPaperPMID 29587267Full record

ArticleNeuroepidemiology2018

Distance from Home to Research Center: A Barrier to In-Person Visits but Not Treatment Adherence in a Stroke Trial.

Enrique C Leira, Catherine M Viscoli, Linnea A Polgreen, Mark Gorman, Walter N Kernan, <collab>on behalf of the IRIS Trial Investigators</collab>

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroepidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. An allied health rehabilitation program for patients following surgery for abdomino-pelvic cancer: a feasibility and pilot clinical study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Trial
  2. A Systematic Review of Pain Drawings for Perioperative Patient Management.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Enrique C LeiraColleges of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Catherine M ViscoliYale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Linnea A PolgreenPharmacy, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Mark GormanMaine Medical Center, Portland, Maine, USA.
Walter N KernanYale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
<collab>on behalf of the IRIS Trial Investigators</collab>

Funding

Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke TrialU01NS044876 · YALE UNIVERSITY · 2004 to 2005
$12.9M
NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS044876
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeClinical trials often seek to enroll patients from both urban and rural areas to safeguard the generalizability of results. However, maintaining contact with patients who live away from a recruitment site, including rural areas, can be challenging. In this research we examine the effect of distance between patient and study centers on treatment adherence and retention.

methodsSecondary analysis of 2,466 participants in the Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke trial who were enrolled from research sites in the United States. Driving distance between the zipcodes of patient's reported place of residence and the study center was calculated. Outcome measures were loss to follow-up, completion of annual in-person visits, adherence to preventive therapy, and adherence to study drug in the first 3 years of participation. Logistic regression models were used to adjust for confounders.

resultsDistance from residence to research center was not associated with loss to follow-up, adherence to study drug, or adherence to preventive therapy (p > 0.05 for each). However, patients who lived farther from the research center (>120 miles), compared to patients who lived closer (<60 miles), were less likely to complete the second annual in-person visit (62 vs. 81%; adjusted OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.31-0.75) and third visit (53 vs. 75%; adjusted OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.29-0.67).

conclusionsDistance between patient and study center was an independent predictor of missed in-person visits but not with adherence to study treatment or preventive care.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicHealth Services AccessibilityTreatment Adherence and ComplianceAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPioglitazoneRural PopulationSecondary PreventionStrokeUnited StatesPioglitazoneAdherenceClinical trialDistanceGeographyIschemic strokePreventionSecondary prevention

Identifiers

PMID29587267
PMCPMC5975097

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.