This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Dobkin, B. H. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Dobkin, B. H. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Progressive Staging of Pilot Studies to Improve Phase III Trials for Motor Interventions

Department of Neurology, Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, bdobkin{at}mednet.ucla.edu

Based on the suboptimal research pathways that finally led to multicenter randomized clinical trials (MRCTs) of treadmill training with partial body weight support and of robotic assistive devices, strategically planned successive stages are proposed for pilot studies of novel rehabilitation interventions. Stage 1, consideration-of-concept studies, drawn from animal experiments, theories, and observations, delineate the experimental intervention in a small convenience sample of participants, so the results must be interpreted with caution. Stage 2, development-of-concept pilots, should optimize the components of the intervention, settle on most appropriate outcome measures, and examine dose-response effects. A well-designed study that reveals no efficacy should be published to counterweight the confirmation bias of positive trials. Stage 3, demonstration-of-concept pilots, can build out from what has been learned to test at least 15 participants in each arm, using random assignment and blinded outcome measures. A control group should receive an active practice intervention aimed at the same primary outcome. A third arm could receive a substantially larger dose of the experimental therapy or a combinational intervention. If only 1 site performed this trial, a different investigative group should aim to reproduce positive outcomes based on the optimal dose of motor training. Stage 3 studies ought to suggest an effect size of 0.4 or higher, so that approximately 50 participants in each arm will be the number required to test for efficacy in a stage 4, proof-of-concept MRCT. By developing a consensus around acceptable and necessary practices for each stage, similar to CONSORT recommendations for the publication of phase III clinical trials, better quality pilot studies may move quickly into better designed and more successful MRCTs of experimental interventions.

Key Words: Stroke rehabilitation • Spinal cord injury • Motor control • Clinical trials • Robotics • Treadmill training

Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, Vol. 23, No. 3, 197-206 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/1545968309331863


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. H. Dobkin What Matters in Cellular Transplantation for Spinal Cord Injury: The Cells, the Rehabilitation, or the Best Mix? Neurorehabil Neural Repair, January 1, 2010; 24(1): 7 - 9. [PDF]

				C. Bosecker, L. Dipietro, B. Volpe, and H. Igo Krebs Kinematic Robot-Based Evaluation Scales and Clinical Counterparts to Measure Upper Limb Motor Performance in Patients With Chronic Stroke Neurorehabil Neural Repair, January 1, 2010; 24(1): 62 - 69. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Lima, P. Escada, J. Pratas-Vital, C. Branco, C. A. Arcangeli, G. Lazzeri, C. A. Santana Maia, C. Capucho, A. Hasse-Ferreira, and J. D. Peduzzi Olfactory Mucosal Autografts and Rehabilitation for Chronic Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury Neurorehabil Neural Repair, January 1, 2010; 24(1): 10 - 22. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. H. Dobkin Collaborative Models for Translational Neuroscience and Rehabilitation Research Neurorehabil Neural Repair, September 1, 2009; 23(7): 633 - 640. [Abstract] [PDF]