Time to Publication of Clinical Trials Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

The Critical Period After Stroke Study (CPASS) Upper Extremity Treatment Protocol

Objective

To present the development of a novel upper extremity (UE) treatment and assess how it was delivered in the Critical Periods After Stroke Study (CPASS), a phase II randomized controlled trial (RCT).

Design

Secondary analysis of data from the RCT.

Setting

Inpatient and outpatient settings the first year after stroke.

Participants

Of the 72 participants enrolled in CPASS (N=72), 53 were in the study groups eligible to receive the treatment initiated at ≤30 days (acute), 2-3 months (subacute), or ≥6 months (chronic) poststroke. Individuals were 65.1±10.5 years of age, 55% were women, and had mild to moderate UE motor capacity (Action Research Arm Test=17.2±14.3) at baseline.

Intervention

The additional 20 hours of treatment began using the Activity Card Sort (ACS), a standardized assessment of activities and participation after stroke, to identify UE treatment goals selected by the participants that were meaningful to them. Treatment activities were broken down into smaller components from a standardized protocol and process that operationalized the treatments essential elements.

Main Outcome Measures

Feasibility of performing the treatment in a variety of clinical settings in an RCT and contextual factors that influenced adherence.

Results

A total of 49/53 participants fully adhered to the CPASS treatment. The duration and location of the treatment sessions and the UE activities practiced during therapy are presented for the total sample (n=49) and per study group as an assessment of feasibility and the contextual factors that influenced adherence.

Conclusions

The CPASS treatment and therapy goals were explicitly based on the meaningful activities identified by the participants using the ACS as a treatment planning tool. This approach provided flexibility to customize UE motor therapy without sacrificing standardization or quantification of the data regardless of the location and UE impairments of participants within the first year poststroke.

Is our public research money well spent? Publication of research outputs from Health Research Council of New Zealand-funded studies: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reporting of results from the projects and programmes funded by the Health Research Council (HRC) New Zealand.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional analysis.

SETTING

Research projects and programmes funded by the HRC New Zealand from 2006 to 2014.

PARTICIPANTS

Publicly available data provided by the HRC.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The number and proportion with evidence of publication and dissemination of a research output from HRC grants and the time taken to disseminate the results.

RESULTS

Of the 374 HRC grants from 2006 to 2014, there was no evidence of publication or reporting of any research output for 48 studies (13%). Of the 326 (87%) grants with research outputs, there was a mean dissemination time of 4.73 years (SD 2.37). The total funding provided by the HRC was NZ$471 663 336, while the 48 grants with no evidence of dissemination represented NZ$47 095 727 (10%).

CONCLUSIONS

Thirteen per cent of the HRC projects and programmes from 2006 to 2014 have not contributed to the healthcare evidence as their results remain unknown.

Publication rates in small German trials remained low five years after trial completion

OBJECTIVE

To investigate publication rates in small trials and to explore which factors are associated with publication rates in small trials, including sample size, the type and number of primary and secondary outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We studied a subgroup of 'small' trials from a pre-existing dataset (IntoValue), containing German trials completed between 2009 and 2017. Small trials were defined as phase II-III, III and IV trials with 150 or fewer participants. We performed an updated publication search and collected additional data from online trial records.

RESULTS

Out of 499 trials, 325 (65%) trials published their results in a journal article or dissertation. Median time-to-publication was 3.41 years (95% CI: 3.04-4.10). Planned sample size was not associated with publication rates, but the difference between planned and achieved sample size was (per 10% unsuccessfully recruited participants, HR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.91-1.00). Phase III vs. II-III trials, studied intervention (device vs. other) and clearly vs. unclearly defined primary outcomes predicted a higher likelihood of earlier publication.

CONCLUSION

About 35% of small trials in Germany remain unpublished, even after an extensive follow-up period of over 9 years. Publication rates are low and were associated with sample size, trial phase and type of intervention.