Boosting enrollment in neurology trials with Local Identification and Outreach Networks (LIONs).

OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to develop a geographically localized, multi-institution strategy for improving enrolment in a trial of secondary stroke prevention. METHODS: We invited 11 Connecticut hospitals to participate in a project named the Local Identification and Outreach Network (LION). Each hospital provided the names of patients with stroke or TIA, identified from electronic admission or discharge logs, to researchers at a central coordinating center. After obtaining permission from personal physicians, researchers contacted each patient to describe the study, screen for eligibility, and set up a home visit for consent. Researchers traveled throughout the state to enroll and follow participants. Outside the LION, investigators identified trial participants using conventional recruitment strategies. We compared recruitment success for the LION and other sites using data from January 1, 2005, through June 30, 2007. RESULTS: The average monthly randomization rate from the LION was 4.0 participants, compared with 0.46 at 104 other Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke (IRIS) sites. The LION randomized on average 1.52/1,000 beds/month, compared with 0.76/1,000 beds/month at other IRIS sites (p = 0.03). The average cost to randomize and follow one participant was $8,697 for the LION, compared with $7,198 for other sites. CONCLUSION: A geographically based network of institutions, served by a central coordinating center, randomized substantially more patients per month compared with sites outside of the network. The high enrollment rate was a result of surveillance at multiple institutions and greater productivity at each institution. Although the cost per patient was higher for the network, compared with nonnetwork sites, cost savings could result from more rapid completion of research.

A comparison of traditional electrodiagnostic studies, electroneurometry, and vibrometry in the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome.

In 49 patients (98 hands), referred to an electrodiagnostic laboratory, assessments were made by conventional nerve conduction studies on the upper extremity and by two more portable modalities, namely electroneurometry (skin surface electrical stimulation of the motor nerve) and single-frequency (120 Hz) vibrometry. Tests were performed on median and ulnar nerves. Correlations with motor nerve conduction studies for each screening test on the median nerve were r = .81 for the electroneurometer and r = .48 for the vibrometer. When carpal tunnel syndrome was diagnosed either by clinical criteria only or by nerve conduction abnormality, the association with electroneurometry was characterized by high sensitivity and low specificity, while the opposite relationship prevailed with vibrometry. These associations were highly dependent on the methods used to select normal values from a reference population. While the manufacturer's recommended normal values offered good predictability, with thresholds that corresponded to nerve conduction studies, normal values generated in a more standard way produced much weaker and less useful associations. The selection of an appropriate electrical screening test for peripheral nerve injury, such as entrapment neuropathy, depends on the prevalence and seriousness of the target disease and the relative consequences of over- and underdiagnosis.