Explore the vast range of titles available.

The methods and results of health research are documented in study protocols, full study reports (detailing all analyses), journal reports, and participant-level datasets. However, protocols, full study reports, and participant-level datasets are rarely available, and journal reports are available for only half of all studies and are plagued by selective reporting of methods and results. Furthermore, information provided in study protocols and reports varies in quality and is often incomplete. When full information about studies is inaccessible, billions of dollars in investment are wasted, bias is introduced, and research and care of patients are detrimentally affected. To help to improve this situation at a systemic level, three main actions are warranted. First, academic institutions and funders should reward investigators who fully disseminate their research protocols, reports, and participant-level datasets. Second, standards for the content of protocols and full study reports and for data sharing practices should be rigorously developed and adopted for all types of health research. Finally, journals, funders, sponsors, research ethics committees, regulators, and legislators should endorse and enforce policies supporting study registration and wide availability of journal reports, full study reports, and participant-level datasets.

H. Bart van der Worp and colleagues discuss the controversies and possibilities of translating the results of animal experiments into human clinical trials.H. Bart van der Worp and colleagues discuss the controversies and possibilities of translating the results of animal experiments into human clinical trials.

A fifth of all strokes and transient ischaemic attacks occur in the posterior circulation arterial territory. Diagnosis can be challenging, in part because of substantial overlap in symptoms and signs with ischaemia in the anterior circulation. Improved methods of non-invasive imaging of the vertebrobasilar arterial tree have been used in recent prospective follow-up studies, which have shown a high risk of early recurrent stroke, particularly when there is associated vertebrobasilar stenosis. This finding emphasises the importance of urgent secondary prevention, and the role of stenting for vertebral stenosis is being investigated.

The consolidation of scientific knowledge proceeds through the interpretation and then distillation of data presented in research reports, first in review articles and then in textbooks and undergraduate courses, until truths become accepted as such both amongst \"experts\" and in the public understanding. Where data are collected but remain unpublished, they cannot contribute to this distillation of knowledge. If these unpublished data differ substantially from published work, conclusions may not reflect adequately the underlying biological effects being described. The existence and any impact of such \"publication bias\" in the laboratory sciences have not been described. Using the CAMARADES (Collaborative Approach to Meta-analysis and Review of Animal Data in Experimental Studies) database we identified 16 systematic reviews of interventions tested in animal studies of acute ischaemic stroke involving 525 unique publications. Only ten publications (2%) reported no significant effects on infarct volume and only six (1.2%) did not report at least one significant finding. Egger regression and trim-and-fill analysis suggested that publication bias was highly prevalent (present in the literature for 16 and ten interventions, respectively) in animal studies modelling stroke. Trim-and-fill analysis suggested that publication bias might account for around one-third of the efficacy reported in systematic reviews, with reported efficacy falling from 31.3% to 23.8% after adjustment for publication bias. We estimate that a further 214 experiments (in addition to the 1,359 identified through rigorous systematic review; non publication rate 14%) have been conducted but not reported. It is probable that publication bias has an important impact in other animal disease models, and more broadly in the life sciences.

Background and aims Pioglitazone targets multiple pathogenic pathways involved in the development of cardiovascular diseases (CVD). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the effects of pioglitazone treatment on the secondary prevention of CVD. Methods Randomized-controlled trials of pioglitazone in patients with CVD were identified through PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and CINAHL, in a search up to May 2016. Studies were included if pioglitazone was compared with any control (usual care, placebo or active comparator) and if patients were previously diagnosed with CVD. The outcomes of interest included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF). All outcomes were compared by pooled risk ratios (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects model. Results Ten studies reported the effects of pioglitazone on any of the outcomes of interest. Pioglitazone reduced recurrent MACE (RR 0.74, 95% 0.60–0.92; I 2  = 35), MI (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64–0.93; I 2  = 0%), or stroke (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68–0.96; I 2  = 0%). Pioglitazone did not reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81–1.08; I 2  = 0%), whereas pioglitazone treatment was associated with an increased risk of HF (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.14–1.54). Conclusions Pioglitazone lowers the risk of recurrent MACE, stroke, or MI in patients with clinical manifest vascular disease. Pioglitazone does not lower the risk for all-cause mortality, and increases the risk for the development of HF.

Infections complicate the acute phase of stroke in one third of patients and especially pneumonia is associated with increased risk of death or dependency. In randomized trials of stroke patients, preventive antibiotics reduced overall infections, but did not reduce pneumonia or improve outcome. This may be explained by broad selection criteria, including many patients with a low risk of pneumonia. To assess the potential of selection of patients at high risk of pneumonia, we performed a post-hoc analysis in the Preventive Antibiotics in Stroke Study (PASS). PASS was a multicentre phase 3 trial in acute stroke patients who were randomized to preventive ceftriaxone for four days within 24 hours or standard care. For this analysis patients were divided based on the ISAN risk score for pneumonia as follows: low (0-6), medium (7-14) and high (15-21). Primary outcomes were pneumonia rate during admission as judged by the treating physician, and by an independent committee; secondary outcomes were overall infections and unfavorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale ≥3). We adjusted with multivariable regression for possible confounders: age, stroke subtype and severity, pre-stroke dependency and diabetes. Pneumonia occurred more frequently in higher risk groups (25.7% (high), 9.0% (medium) 1.5%, (low)). The absolute difference in pneumonia rate between patients treated with ceftriaxone or standard care increased with the ISAN score (low: 0.5%, medium: 1.2%, high: 10.1%). After adjustment ceftriaxone reduced overall infections in the low and medium groups, not in the high-risk group. There was a trend towards reduction of pneumonia as judged by the committee (3.7% vs 13.6%, aOR = 0.164, p = 0.063) in the high-risk group. This post-hoc analysis of PASS confirmed higher rates of pneumonia with higher ISAN scores, and suggests that in acute stroke patients with an ISAN score of ≥15, preventive ceftriaxone for four days may reduce pneumonia rate.

In A Randomized trial of Unruptured Brain Arteriovenous malformations (ARUBA), randomisation was halted at a mean follow-up of 33·3 months after a prespecified interim analysis showed that medical management alone was superior to the combination of medical management and interventional therapy in preventing symptomatic stroke or death. We aimed to study whether these differences persisted through 5-years' follow-up. ARUBA was a non-blinded, randomised trial done at 39 clinical centres in nine countries. Adults (age ≥18 years) diagnosed with an unruptured brain arteriovenous malformation, who had never undergone interventional therapy, and were considered by participating clinical centres to be suitable for intervention to eradicate the lesion, were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a web-based data collection system, stratified by clinical centre in a random permuted block design with block sizes of two, four, and six, to medical management alone or with interventional therapy (neurosurgery, embolisation, or stereotactic radiotherapy, alone or in any combination, sequence, or number). Although patients and investigators at a given centre were not masked to treatment assignment, investigators at other centres and those in the clinical coordinating centre were not informed of assignment or outcomes at any of the centres. The primary outcome was time to death or symptomatic stroke confirmed by imaging, assessed by a neurologist at each centre not involved in the management of participants' care, and monitored by an independent committee using an adaptive approach with interim analyses. Enrolment began on April 4, 2007, and was halted on April 15, 2013, after which follow-up continued until July 15, 2015. All analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00389181. Of 1740 patients screened, 226 were randomly assigned to medical management alone (n=110) or medical management plus interventional therapy (n=116). During a mean follow-up of 50·4 months (SD 22·9), the incidence of death or symptomatic stroke was lower with medical management alone (15 of 110, 3·39 per 100 patient-years) than with medical management with interventional therapy (41 of 116, 12·32 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio 0·31, 95% CI 0·17 to 0·56). Two patients in the medical management group and four in the interventional therapy group (two attributed to intervention) died during follow-up. Adverse events were observed less often in patients allocated to medical management compared with interventional therapy (283 vs 369; 58·97 vs 78·73 per 100 patient-years; risk difference −19·76, 95% CI −30·33 to −9·19). After extended follow-up, ARUBA showed that medical management alone remained superior to interventional therapy for the prevention of death or symptomatic stroke in patients with an unruptured brain arteriovenous malformation. The data concerning the disparity in outcomes should affect standard specialist practice and the information presented to patients. The even longer-term risks and differences between the two therapeutic approaches remains uncertain. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke for the randomisation phase and Vital Projects Fund for the follow-up phase.

Stroke is a major burden to patients and society, and resources spent on stroke research must be used efficiently and produce good value in terms of improvements in human health. However, many instances of poor value from stroke research funding have resulted from the way in which stroke research topics have been chosen and how studies have been designed, conducted, analysed, regulated, managed, disseminated, or reported. A cooperative effort of European stroke researchers aimed to identify sources of inefficiency and waste, recommend approaches to increase value, and highlight examples of best practice in stroke research. Evidence suggests that progress has been made, but there is room for much improvement; researchers, funders, regulators, and other stakeholders in stroke research might consider these recommendations when planning new research.

Treatment of acute stroke, before a distinction can be made between ischemic and hemorrhagic types, is challenging. Whether very early blood-pressure control in the ambulance improves outcomes among patients with undifferentiated acute stroke is uncertain. We randomly assigned patients with suspected acute stroke that caused a motor deficit and with elevated systolic blood pressure (≥150 mm Hg), who were assessed in the ambulance within 2 hours after the onset of symptoms, to receive immediate treatment to lower the systolic blood pressure (target range, 130 to 140 mm Hg) (intervention group) or usual blood-pressure management (usual-care group). The primary efficacy outcome was functional status as assessed by the score on the modified Rankin scale (range, 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]) at 90 days after randomization. The primary safety outcome was any serious adverse event. A total of 2404 patients (mean age, 70 years) in China underwent randomization and provided consent for the trial: 1205 in the intervention group and 1199 in the usual-care group. The median time between symptom onset and randomization was 61 minutes (interquartile range, 41 to 93), and the mean blood pressure at randomization was 178/98 mm Hg. Stroke was subsequently confirmed by imaging in 2240 patients, of whom 1041 (46.5%) had a hemorrhagic stroke. At the time of patients' arrival at the hospital, the mean systolic blood pressure in the intervention group was 159 mm Hg, as compared with 170 mm Hg in the usual-care group. Overall, there was no difference in functional outcome between the two groups (common odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.15), and the incidence of serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. Prehospital reduction of blood pressure was associated with a decrease in the odds of a poor functional outcome among patients with hemorrhagic stroke (common odds ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.92) but an increase among patients with cerebral ischemia (common odds ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.60). In this trial, prehospital blood-pressure reduction did not improve functional outcomes in a cohort of patients with undifferentiated acute stroke, of whom 46.5% subsequently received a diagnosis of hemorrhagic stroke. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; INTERACT4 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03790800; Chinese Trial Registry number, ChiCTR1900020534.).

Stenting is an alternative to endarterectomy for treatment of carotid artery stenosis, but long-term efficacy is uncertain. We report long-term data from the randomised International Carotid Stenting Study comparison of these treatments. Patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis were randomly assigned 1:1 to open treatment with stenting or endarterectomy at 50 centres worldwide. Randomisation was computer generated centrally and allocated by telephone call or fax. Major outcomes were assessed by an independent endpoint committee unaware of treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was fatal or disabling stroke in any territory after randomisation to the end of follow-up. Analysis was by intention to treat ([ITT] all patients) and per protocol from 31 days after treatment (all patients in whom assigned treatment was completed). Functional ability was rated with the modified Rankin scale. This study is registered, number ISRCTN25337470. 1713 patients were assigned to stenting (n=855) or endarterectomy (n=858) and followed up for a median of 4·2 years (IQR 3·0–5·2, maximum 10·0). Three patients withdrew immediately and, therefore, the ITT population comprised 1710 patients. The number of fatal or disabling strokes (52 vs 49) and cumulative 5-year risk did not differ significantly between the stenting and endarterectomy groups (6·4% vs 6·5%; hazard ratio [HR] 1·06, 95% CI 0·72–1·57, p=0·77). Any stroke was more frequent in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group (119 vs 72 events; ITT population, 5-year cumulative risk 15·2% vs 9·4%, HR 1·71, 95% CI 1·28–2·30, p<0·001; per-protocol population, 5-year cumulative risk 8·9% vs 5·8%, 1·53, 1·02–2·31, p=0·04), but were mainly non-disabling strokes. The distribution of modified Rankin scale scores at 1 year, 5 years, or final follow-up did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Long-term functional outcome and risk of fatal or disabling stroke are similar for stenting and endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis. Medical Research Council, Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union.