Observational studyStroke and vascular neurology2026
Where are we going for the treatment in ischaemic stroke: a comprehensive study of investigator-sponsored randomised controlled trials, 1990-2024.
Observational study in Stroke and vascular neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUntil recently, a comprehensive understanding of the current development status and emerging trends of investigator-sponsored randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for the treatment of ischaemic stroke (IS) on a global scale remains elusive, making it unclear where the research and innovation in the field are going.
methodsFollowing the design, registration, enrolment and publication (DREP) cycle, we conducted an observational study of investigator-sponsored RCTs enrolling patients with IS for therapeutic purposes using the International Clinical Trial Registry Platform. We analysed cumulative publication rates since registration and enrolment and explored the association of potential factors with publication status.
resultsA total of 1518 trials were included. The number of registered, enrolment-commenced, published RCTs increased from 1990 to 2024 (p<0.001, for all). Of these, 66.5% were registered prior to their enrolment with the first subject. Among 435 trials that ended and were registered 5 years ago, 189 (43.4%) have been published. Multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed that endovascular therapy or surgery as intervention (compared with traditional medicine) (HR (95% CI), 2.02 (1.06 to 3.87)) was associated with trial publication. Also, there existed a positive association between target sample size and publication, when the sample size surpassed 274. In addition, the most frequent cause of the termination and withdrawal in trials is the difficulty in enrolment.
conclusionSince 1990 to the present, investigator-sponsored RCTs of IS treatment have seen a significant increase worldwide. Nevertheless, a multitude of impediments in the DREP cycle still persists that necessitate resolution and enhancement. There is a pressing need for addressing issues such as retrospective registration, premature termination of enrolment and suppression of study results, to further expand the reach of research improvements to a wider patient community.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.