|
KMID : 1142120220240010049
|
|
Journal of Stroke
2022 Volume.24 No. 1 p.49 ~ p.56
|
|
|
The Challenge of Designing Stroke Trials That Change Practice: MCID vs. Sample Size and Pragmatism
|
|
Goyal Mayank
McDonough Rosalie
Fisher Marc
Ospel Johanna M.
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are the basis for evidence-based acute stroke care. For an RCT to change practice, its results have to be statistically significant and clinically meaningful. While methods to assess statistical significance are standardized and widely agreed upon, there is no clear consensus on how to assess clinical significance. Researchers often refer to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) when describing the smallest change in outcomes that is considered meaningful to patients and leads to a change in patient management. It is widely accepted that a treatment should only be adopted when its effect on outcome is equal to or larger than the MCID. There are however situations in which it is reasonable to decide against adopting a treatment, even when its beneficial effect matches or exceeds the MCID, for example when it is resource- intensive and associated with high costs. Furthermore, while the MCID represents an important concept in this regard, defining it for an individual trial is difficult as it is highly context specific. In the following, we use hypothetical stroke trial examples to review the challenges related to MCID, sample size and pragmatic considerations that researchers face in acute stroke trials, and propose a framework for designing meaningful stroke trials that have the potential to change clinical practice.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
Ischemic stroke, Ischemia, Sample size
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
   
|