Who funds stroke trials in Europe? A survey of funding sources for randomised controlled stroke trials by the European Stroke Organisation Trials Alliance (ESOTA) network
Agarwal, S.; Olivot, J. M.; Roffe, C.; Knoflach, M.
Show abstract
Abstract Aims and scope Evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) has transformed stroke care. There are no systematically collected data on the amount of public funding, critical to delivering trials, going into stroke RCTs. To understand the extent of stroke RCT funding by national and EU funding bodies across Europe, the European Stroke Organisation Trials Alliance (ESOTA) conducted a survey of its member nations. Methods This is an observational study of research funding in Europe. The ESOTA steering group sent an electronic survey to the leads of the 16 participating national networks from 14 countries. Structured survey questions included who the funding bodies were in each country, the number of RCT applications put forward for public national or EU funding, the number of successful and failed applications, and the amount of funding granted between 01/01/2022 and 31/12/2023. Results Responses were received from 13 of 14 participating countries. There was significant variation in the number of grant applications submitted by individual countries, ranging from 0-17 during the 24-month survey period. The median number of funded studies per country was 1 (IQR 3, range 0-9) representing a median success rate of 47.1 % (IQR 21.1-59.4%), with no RCTs granted joint European funding. Conclusions Our survey highlights significant inequities in stroke trial funding across Europe. Given the encouraging rate of successful applications overall, it is important for all member networks to submit proposals. This is particularly pertinent for multicentre trials, given the evolution of evidence base in stroke towards large trials, across diverse populations.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Measurement of quality of stroke care with national electronic health records: a cohort during and after the COVID-19 pandemic 93%
- Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of TeleStroke Consultations to Support the Care of Stroke Patients Presenting to Regional Emergency Departments in Western Australia: An Economic Evaluation Case Study Protocol 93%
- Reporting of Retrospective Registration in Clinical Trial Publications 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Practitioner, patient and public views on the acceptability of Mobile Stroke Units in England and Wales: a mixed methods study 94%
- Intravenous Thrombolysis for Acute Central Retinal Artery Occlusion: Protocol For a Systematic Review and Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials 91%
- The whole day matters after stroke: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial investigating the effect of a 'sit less, move more, sleep better program early after stroke 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Workflow Intervals andOutcomesof Endovascular Treatment for Acute Large-Vessel Occlusion During On- Versus Off-Hours in China The ANGEL-ACT Registry 91%
- Smoking does not alter treatment effect of intravenous thrombolysis in mild to moderate acute ischemic stroke; a Dutch String-of-Pearls Institute (PSI) Stroke Study 90%
- Left Hemisphere Bias of NIH Stroke Scale is Most Severe for Middle Cerebral Artery Strokes 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- When two communication differences intersect: Comparing inpatient rehabilitation care and outcomes for people with post-stroke aphasia who do and do not require an interpreter 92%
- Effect of Time to Thrombolysis on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke Treated with Tenecteplase Compared to Alteplase: Analysis from the AcT Randomized Controlled Trial 92%
- Prospective Observational Cohort Study Of Tenecteplase Versus Alteplase In Routine Clinical Practice 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.