Click here to close Hello! We notice that you are using Internet Explorer, which is not supported by Echinobase and may cause the site to display incorrectly. We suggest using a current version of Chrome, FireFox, or Safari.
Echinobase
ECB-ART-45979
Spinal Cord 2018 May 01;565:414-425. doi: 10.1038/s41393-017-0015-5.
Show Gene links Show Anatomy links

Considerations and recommendations for selection and utilization of upper extremity clinical outcome assessments in human spinal cord injury trials.

Jones LAT , Bryden A , Wheeler TL , Tansey KE , Anderson KD , Beattie MS , Blight A , Curt A , Field-Fote E , Guest JD , Hseih J , Jakeman LB , Kalsi-Ryan S , Krisa L , Lammertse DP , Leiby B , Marino R , Schwab JM , Scivoletto G , Tulsky DS , Wirth E , Zariffa J , Kleitman N , Mulcahey MJ , Steeves JD .


Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: This is a focused review article. OBJECTIVES: This review presents important features of clinical outcomes assessments (COAs) in human spinal cord injury research. Considerations for COAs by trial phase and International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health are presented as well as strengths and recommendations for upper extremity COAs for research. Clinical trial tools and designs to address recruitment challenges are identified. METHODS: The methods include a summary of topics discussed during a two-day workshop, conceptual discussion of upper extremity COAs and additional focused literature review. RESULTS: COAs must be appropriate to trial phase and particularly in mid-late-phase trials, should reflect recovery vs. compensation, as well as being clinically meaningful. The impact and extent of upper vs. lower motoneuron disease should be considered, as this may affect how an individual may respond to a given therapeutic. For trials with broad inclusion criteria, the content of COAs should cover all severities and levels of SCI. Specific measures to assess upper extremity function as well as more comprehensive COAs are under development. In addition to appropriate use of COAs, methods to increase recruitment, such as adaptive trial designs and prognostic modeling to prospectively stratify heterogeneous populations into appropriate cohorts should be considered. CONCLUSIONS: With an increasing number of clinical trials focusing on improving upper extremity function, it is essential to consider a range of factors when choosing a COA. SPONSORS: Craig H. Neilsen Foundation, Spinal Cord Outcomes Partnership Endeavor.

PubMed ID: 29284795
PMC ID: PMC5951792
Article link: Spinal Cord


Genes referenced: impact

References [+] :
Babbs, Choosing inclusion criteria that minimize the time and cost of clinical trials. 2014, Pubmed