This observational screening analysis assessed recruitment for a mechanistic stroke neurorehabilitation trial at a single neurological rehabilitation center in Germany. Screening took place between October 2023 and February 2026. A total of 1,201 rehabilitation patients were assessed for potential inclusion using a stepwise recruitment flow approach tailored to the trial’s requirements, which included procedures such as imaging and repeated laboratory visits as part of the mechanistic study protocol.
The screening data reported here derived from the recruitment process of the trial by Brueckner et al. (2026). The original study protocol and its recruitment procedures had prior review and approval from the Medical Research Ethics Board of the University of Oldenburg (approval number 2021-110). The present analysis used only screening and recruitment data and involved no additional contact or procedures beyond those already part of the recruitment workflow.
Of the 1,201 patients screened, 678 had an ischemic stroke diagnosis and were therefore considered within the target population for enrollment analysis. From this group, 13 participants were ultimately enrolled in the mechanistic neurorehabilitation trial. This corresponds to 1.9% of screened ischemic stroke patients and 1.1% of the entire rehabilitation cohort screened.
These figures illustrate a low absolute and relative enrollment yield in the setting evaluated. The observed yield can be expressed informally as roughly one enrolled participant for every 52 patients screened, reflecting substantial screening effort relative to successful recruitment.
The analysis identified the leading causes for exclusion among screened patients. The most frequently cited barrier was strict clinical eligibility criteria, accounting for 52.2% of exclusions. Predefined clinical thresholds and inclusion/exclusion rules typical of mechanistic trials—designed to reduce heterogeneity and ensure safety and data quality—substantially reduced the pool of eligible candidates.
Logistical constraints were prominent. Travel distance to the study center was the second most common exclusion reason, responsible for 23.9% of exclusions. Trials that require multiple visits, imaging sessions such as MRI, or centralized laboratory assessments can create geographic and time burdens that limit participation.
Predefined age restrictions accounted for 17.9% of exclusions. Age-based cutoffs and other demographic eligibility rules removed a nontrivial proportion of potential participants and therefore shaped the enrolled sample.
The source report lists these exclusion reasons as the principal drivers but does not provide a more granular breakdown of other, less frequent exclusion categories in this summary.
Recruitment losses accumulated across multiple stages of the screening workflow rather than concentrating at a single identifiable step. The authors used a stepwise flow approach to track patient attrition through screening, eligibility assessment, and final enrollment. While the report highlights the dominant exclusion categories (clinical criteria, travel distance, and age limits), it emphasizes that attrition was distributed across the process, indicating multiple leverage points for improving recruitment.
Because the analysis was observational and limited to screening records, the report does not include additional qualitative data (for example, patient-reported reasons for declining) beyond the documented exclusion categories. Details about the exact screening stages, numeric counts at each intermediate step, or timing-related barriers were not reported beyond the aggregate exclusion percentages cited.
The principal conclusion drawn by the authors is that recruitment for mechanistic stroke neurorehabilitation trials is strongly constrained by restrictive study criteria and logistical barriers. The combination of narrow clinical eligibility windows, travel and visit burdens, and demographic restrictions contributed to a very low enrollment fraction in the screened population.
To improve recruitment efficiency and better represent real-world stroke populations, the authors suggest consideration of more pragmatic and inclusive study designs. Potential approaches implied by the findings include relaxing nonessential clinical eligibility thresholds, re-evaluating age cutoffs, decentralizing study procedures where feasible, and reducing travel-related burdens—though specific operational recommendations were not enumerated in the source text.
The report underscores that mechanistic research requirements (for example, repeated imaging or centralized laboratory assessments) must be balanced against the practicalities of enrolling representative patient samples.
The reported screening analysis arose from the recruitment activities of a separately approved trial; the original protocol received ethics approval from the Medical Research Ethics Board of the University of Oldenburg (approval number 2021-110). The authors declare no competing interests.
Data generated in this screening study are available from the authors on reasonable request. Funding for the work was provided by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Project ID 456732630). The preprint posting date reported on the source was August 26, 2026.