Despite promising preclinical data, few novel stroke therapies have shown efficacy in man. Efforts to improve standards in conduct and reporting of preclinical research are ongoing. In clinical trials, inconsistency in outcome measures led to regulatory agencies and funders mandating use of a core set of functional outcomes. Our aim was to describe functional outcome measures in preclinical stroke and vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) studies. From 14 high impact journals (January 2005-December 2015 inclusive), 91,956 papers were screened with 1302 full texts analyzed for stroke (ischemic and hemorrhagic) and 56 for VCI studies. In total, 636 (49%) stroke and 37 (66%) VCI papers reported functional outcome measures. There were 74 different functional assessments reported in stroke and 20 in VCI studies. Neurological deficit scores (74%) and Morris water maze (60%) were most commonly used in stroke and VCI, respectively. However, inconsistencies in methods used to assess and score recovery were noted. Neurological and behavioural functional outcome measures are increasingly used in preclinical stroke or VCI studies; however, there is substantial variation in methods. A strict standardized outcome set may not be suitable for translational work, but greater consistency in choice, application and reporting of outcomes may improve the science.

Diagnostic test accuracy of remote, multidomain cognitive assessment (telephone and video call) for dementia (Protocol).

Assessment of outcome in preclinical studies of vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) is heterogenous. Through an ARUK Scottish Network supported questionnaire and workshop (mostly UK-based researchers), we aimed to determine underlying variability and what could be implemented to overcome identified challenges. Twelve UK VCI research centres were identified and invited to complete a questionnaire and attend a one-day workshop. Questionnaire responses demonstrated agreement that outcome assessments in VCI preclinical research vary by group and even those common across groups, may be performed differently. From the workshop, six themes were discussed: issues with preclinical models, reasons for choosing functional assessments, issues in interpretation of functional assessments, describing and reporting functional outcome assessments, sharing resources and expertise, and standardization of outcomes. Eight consensus points emerged demonstrating broadly that the chosen assessment should reflect the deficit being measured, and therefore that one assessment does not suit all models; guidance/standardisation on recording VCI outcome reporting is needed and that uniformity would be aided by a platform to share expertise, material, protocols and procedures thus reducing heterogeneity and so increasing potential for collaboration, comparison and replication. As a result of the workshop, UK wide consensus statements were agreed and future priorities for preclinical research identified.

No abstract