Dataset Information

Exploring threats to generalisability in a large international rehabilitation trial (AVERT).

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The purpose of this paper is to examine potential threats to generalisability of the results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial using data from A Very Early Rehabilitation Trial (AVERT).

Design

AVERT is a prospective, parallel group, assessor-blinded randomised clinical trial. This paper presents data assessing the generalisability of AVERT.

Setting

Acute stroke units at 44 hospitals in 8 countries.

Participants

The first 20,000 patients screened for AVERT, of whom 1158 were recruited and randomised.

Model

We use the Proximal Similarity Model, which considers the person, place, and setting and practice, as a framework for considering generalisability. As well as comparing the recruited patients with the target population, we also performed an exploratory analysis of the demographic, clinical, site and process factors associated with recruitment.

Results

The demographics and stroke characteristics of the included patients in the trial were broadly similar to population-based norms, with the exception that AVERT had a greater proportion of men. The most common reason for non-recruitment was late arrival to hospital (ie, >24 h). Overall, being older and female reduced the odds of recruitment to the trial. More women than men were excluded for most of the reasons, including refusal. The odds of exclusion due to early deterioration were particularly high for those with severe stroke (OR=10.4, p<0.001, 95% CI 9.27 to 11.65).

Conclusions

A model which explores person, place, and setting and practice factors can provide important information about the external validity of a trial, and could be applied to other clinical trials.

Trial registration number

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12606000185561) and Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01846247).

SUBMITTER: Bernhardt J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4550737 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exploring threats to generalisability in a large international rehabilitation trial (AVERT).

Bernhardt Julie J Raffelt Audrey A Churilov Leonid L Lindley Richard I RI Speare Sally S Ancliffe Jacqueline J Katijjahbe Md Ali MA Hameed Shahul S Lennon Sheila S McRae Anna A Tan Dawn D Quiney Jan J Williamson Hannah C HC Collier Janice J Dewey Helen M HM Donnan Geoffrey A GA Langhorne Peter P Thrift Amanda G AG

BMJ open 20150817 8

<h4>Objective</h4>The purpose of this paper is to examine potential threats to generalisability of the results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial using data from A Very Early Rehabilitation Trial (AVERT).<h4>Design</h4>AVERT is a prospective, parallel group, assessor-blinded randomised clinical trial. This paper presents data assessing the generalisability of AVERT.<h4>Setting</h4>Acute stroke units at 44 hospitals in 8 countries.<h4>Participants</h4>The first 20,000 patients screened ...[more]

PMID: 26283667

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesInformation about younger people of working age (≤65 years), their post stroke outcomes and rehabilitation pathways can highlight areas for further research and service change. This paper describes: (1) baseline demographics; (2) post acute rehabilitation pathways; and (3) 12-month outcomes; disability, mobility, depression, quality of life, informal care and return to work of working age people across three geographic regions (Australasia (AUS), South East (SE) Asia and UK).DesignThis post hoc descriptive exploration of data from the large international very early rehabilitation trial (A Very Early Rehabilitation Trial (AVERT)) examined the four common post acute rehabilitation pathways (inpatient rehabilitation, home with community rehabilitation, inpatient rehabilitation then community rehabilitation and home with no rehabilitation) experienced by participants in the 3 months post stroke and describes their 12-month outcomes.SettingHospital stroke units in AUS, UK and SE Asia.ParticipantsPatients who had an acute stroke recruited within 24 hours who were ≤65 years.Results668 participants were ≤65 years; 99% lived independently, and 88% no disability (modified Rankin Score (mRS)=0) prior to stroke. We had complete data for 12-month outcomes for n=631 (94%). The proportion receiving inpatient rehabilitation was higher in AUS than other regions (AUS 52%; UK 25%; SE Asia 23%), whereas the UK had higher community rehabilitation (UK 65%; AUS 61%; SE Asia 39%). At 12 months, 70% had no or little disability (mRS 0-2), 44% were depressed, 28% rated quality of life as poor or worse than death. For those working prior to stroke (n=228), only 57% had returned to work. A noteworthy number of working age survivors received no rehabilitation services within 3 months post stroke.ConclusionsThere was considerable variation in rehabilitation pathways and post acute service use across the three regions. At 12 months, there were high rates of depression, poor quality of life and low rates of return to work.Trial registration numberAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12606000185561).

Project description:ObjectivesWhile very early mobilisation (VEM) intervention for stroke patients was shown not to be effective at 3 months, 12 month clinical and economical outcomes remain unknown. The aim was to assess cost-effectiveness of a VEM intervention within a phase III randomised controlled trial (RCT).DesignAn economic evaluation alongside a RCT, and detailed resource use and cost analysis over 12 months post-acute stroke.SettingMulti-country RCT involved 58 stroke centres.Participants2104 patients with acute stroke who were admitted to a stroke unit.InterventionA very early rehabilitation intervention within 24 hours of stroke onset METHODS: Cost-utility analyses were undertaken according to pre-specified protocol measuring VEM against usual care (UC) based on 12 month outcomes. The analysis was conducted using both health sector and societal perspectives. Unit costs were sourced from participating countries. Details on resource use (both health and non-health) were sourced from cost case report form. Dichotomised modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores (0 to 2 vs 3 to 6) and quality adjusted-life years (QALYs) were used to compare the treatment effect of VEM and UC. The base case analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis and 95% CI for cost and QALYs were estimated by bootstrapping. Sensitivity analysis were conducted to examine the robustness of base case results.ResultsVEM and UC groups were comparable in the quantity of resource use and cost of each component. There were no differences in the probability of achieving a favourable mRS outcome (0.030, 95% CI -0.022 to 0.082), QALYs (0.013, 95% CI -0.041 to 0.016) and cost (AUD1082, 95% CI -$2520 to $4685 from a health sector perspective or AUD102, 95% CI -$6907 to $7111, from a societal perspective including productivity cost). Sensitivity analysis achieved results with mostly overlapped CIs.ConclusionsVEM and UC were associated with comparable costs, mRS outcome and QALY gains at 12 months. Compared with to UC, VEM is unlikely to be cost-effective. The long-term data collection during the trial also informed resource use and cost of care post-acute stroke across five participating countries.Trial registration numberACTRN12606000185561; Results.

Project description:Owls (Strigiformes) provide myriad ecosystem services and are sentinels for ecosystem health. However, they are at continued risk from anthropogenic threats such as vehicle collisions, entanglement with human-made materials, and exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs), a widespread pesticide known to affect owls. Texas is an important region for numerous migratory and non-migratory owl species in the United States (US), yet assessments of threats owls face here are lacking preventing the development of informed conservation strategies. This study coupled assessment of admittance data from two wildlife rehabilitation centers in Texas with AR liver screening to (1) identify which species of owls are commonly admitted, (2) evaluate seasonality of admittance, and (3) assess causes of admittance for owls in Texas. Between 2010 and 2021, 1,620 owls were admitted into rehabilitation, representing eight species of which the Great-horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) was the most common. For all owls combined admittance rates were highest in the spring, driven by an influx of juveniles (n = 703, 43.40%). The leading cause of admittance amongst species was 'no apparent injury' (n = 567, 34.94%). Where clear diagnoses could be made, the leading causes of admittances were 'entrapment in human infrastructure' (n = 100, 6.11%) and 'collision with vehicles' (n = 74, 4.56%). While the admittance data did not reveal any cases of AR poisoning, liver screening demonstrated high incidences of AR exposure; of 53 owls screened for ARs, 50.94% (n = 27) tested positive with 18 showing exposure to multiple ARs. Brodifacoum was the most frequently detected AR (n = 19, 43.18%) and seven owls (25.93%) tested positive within lethal ranges. Our results suggest that owls in Texas are at risk from myriad anthropogenic threats and face high exposure rates to ARs. In doing so, our results can inform conservation strategies that mitigate anthropogenic threats faced by owls in Texas and beyond.

Project description:IntroductionSelecting and collecting data to support appropriate primary and secondary outcomes is a critical step in designing trials that can change clinical practice. In this study, we aimed to investigate who contributes to the process of selecting and collecting trial outcomes, and how these people are involved. This work serves two main purposes: (1) it provides the trials community with evidence to demonstrate how outcomes are currently selected and collected, and (2) it allows people involved in trial design and conduct to pick apart these processes to consider how efficiencies and improvements can be made.MethodsOne-with-one semi-structured interviews, supported by a topic guide to ensure coverage of key content. The Framework approach was used for thematic analysis of data, and themes were linked through constant comparison of data both within and across participant groups. Interviews took place between July 2020 and January 2021. Participants were twenty-nine international trialists from various contributor groups, working primarily on designing and/or delivering phase III pragmatic effectiveness trials. Their experience spanned various funders, trial settings, clinical specialties, intervention types, and participant populations.ResultsWe identified three descriptive themes encompassing the process of primary and secondary outcome selection, collection, and the publication of outcome data. Within these themes, participants raised issues around the following: 1) Outcome selection: clarity of the research question; confidence in selecting trial outcomes and how confidence decreases with increased experience; interplay between different interested parties; how patients and the public are involved in outcome selection; perceived impact of poor outcome selection including poor recruitment and/or retention; and use of core outcome sets. 2) Outcome collection: disconnect between decisions made by outcome selectors and the practical work done by outcome collectors; potential impact of outcome measures on trial participants; potential impact on trial staff workload; and use of routinely collected data. 3) Publication of outcome data: difficulties in finding time to write and revise manuscripts for publication due to time and funding constraints. Participants overwhelmingly focused on the process of outcome selection, a topic they talked about unprompted. When prompted, participants do discuss outcome collection, but poor communication between selectors and collectors at the trial design stage means that outcome selection is rarely linked with the data collection workload it generates.DiscussionPeople involved in the design and conduct of trials fail to connect decisions around outcome selection with data collection workload. Publication of outcome data and effective dissemination of trial results are hindered due to the project-based culture of some academic clinical trial research.

Dataset Information

Exploring threats to generalisability in a large international rehabilitation trial (AVERT).

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Model

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration number

Publications

Exploring threats to generalisability in a large international rehabilitation trial (AVERT).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets