ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2019
Ethics and Bias in Clinical Trial Enrollment in Stroke.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emergency consent pathways in acute ischemic stroke trials: determinants, consequences, and stakeholder attitudes-an evidence-mapping study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Finasteride Use Does Not Lead to Depression or Suicide: Insights From a Large-Scale Cohort Study and Mendelian Randomization Analysis.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Article
- Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation in Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Setting of Reperfusion Therapy: Insights and Strategies for Optimized Care.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Review
- Allocation of Opportunities to Participate in Clinical Trials during the Covid-19 Pandemic and Other Public Health Emergencies.The Hastings Center report · 2022Article
- Advancing Clinical Trials for Inherited Retinal Diseases: Recommendations from the Second Monaciano Symposium.Translational vision science & technology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewTo familiarize the reader with ethical concerns and potential scientific bias in management and conduction of clinical stroke trials. RECENT
findingsThe goal of clinical trials in stroke is to find effective interventions for stroke prevention, acute treatment, and rehabilitation and recovery. Acute trials must be designed in the context of the time-sensitivity of revascularization therapies. Standard ethical constraints apply. However, informed consent is hindered by tight time windows for reperfusion therapy and frequent cognitive impairment in patients. These might be mitigated by using visual decision aids. Non-traditional methods of consent such as utilization of surrogates, telemedicine, and exception from informed consent are critical for successful and unbiased conduction of stroke trials. Stroke centers must have an a priori plan for deciding which trial to offer multiple-trial eligible patients. Historic non-generalizability of stroke trials due to under-enrollment of women, racial minorities, and age extremes is improving, but adequate representative recruitment and retention require up-front planning and training. Stroke trials have become less biased and more representative in the last decades, but there is still research to be done to improve ethical and unbiased recruitment and retention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31011843What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.