A randomised feasibility trial comparing needle fasciotomy with limited fasciectomy treatment for Dupuytren's contractures

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to assess the feasibility of conducting a large, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing needle fasciotomy with limited fasciectomy for treatment of Dupuytren’s contractures.

Design

The design of this study is a parallel, two-arm, multicentre, randomised feasibility trial with embedded QuinteT Recruitment Intervention.

Participants

Patients aged 18 years or over who were referred from primary to secondary care for treatment of a hand with Dupuytren’s contractures of one or more fingers of more than 30° at the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) and/or proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints and well-defined cord(s). Patients were excluded if they had undergone previous Dupuytren’s contracture surgery on the same hand.

Methods

Potential participants were screened for eligibility. Recruited participants randomised (1:1) to treatment with either needle fasciotomy or limited fasciectomy and followed-up for up to 6 months after treatment. Data on recruitment rates, completion of follow-up, and procedure costs were collected. Four patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and objective outcome measures were collected before intervention and 6 weeks and 6 months afterwards.

Results

One hundred and fifty-three of 267 (57%) primary-care referrals for Dupuytren’s contractures met the eligibility criteria for the study. Seventy-one of the 153 (46%) agreed to participate and were randomly allocated to treatment with needle fasciotomy or limited fasciectomy. Sixty-seven of these underwent their allocated treatment, two were crossovers from limited fasciectomy to needle fasciotomy, and two (both allocated limited fasciectomy) received no treatment. Fifty-nine participants (85%) completed 6-month follow-up PROMs. Participants felt the MYMOP, PEM and URAM PROMs allowed them to better describe how their treatment affected their hand function than the DASH PROM. The estimated costs of limited fasciectomy (in an operating theatre) and needle fasciotomy (in a clinic room) were £777 and £111 respectively.

Conclusion

A large RCT comparing treatment of Dupuytren’s contractures by needle fasciotomy and limited fasciectomy is feasible. Data from this study will help determine the number of sites and duration of recruitment required to complete an adequately powered RCT and will assist the selection of PROMs in future studies on the treatment of Dupuytren’s contractures. (Level 1 feasibility study).

Trial registration

Trial registered with ISRCTN (registration number: ISRCTN11164292), date assigned - 28/08/2015.

Multi-Centre Micro-Costing of Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass, Sleeve Gastrectomy and Adjustable Gastric Banding Procedures for the Treatment of Severe, Complex Obesity

BACKGROUND

There is a growing interest in comparing the effectiveness and costs of alternative forms of bariatric surgery. We aimed to examine the per-patient, procedural costs of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and adjustable gastric banding (AGB) in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

Multi-centre (two National Health Service; NHS and one private hospital) micro-costing, using a time-and-motion study. Prospective collection of surgery times, staff quantities, equipment, instruments and consumables for 12 patients (four RYGB, five SG, three AGB) from patients' first surgeon interaction on the day of surgery to departure from the theatre recovery area. Costs were attached to quantities and mean costs compared. Sensitivity and scenario analyses assessed the impact of varying surgery inputs and consideration of additional plausible factors respectively on total costs.

RESULTS

Mean procedural costs were £5002 for RYGB, £4306 for SG and £2527 for AGB. Varying staff seniority or altering procedure times had small impacts on costs (± 4-6%). Reducing prices of consumables by 20% reduced costs by 10-13%. Accounting for differences in surgical technique by altering the number of staple reloads used impacted costs by ± 7-10%. Adjusted total costs from scenario analyses were similar to NHS tariffs for RYGB and SG (difference of £51 and -£119 respectively) but were much lower for AGB (difference of £1982).

CONCLUSIONS

These detailed costs will allow for more precise reimbursement of bariatric surgery and support comprehensive assessments of cost-effectiveness. Additional work to investigate costs of post-surgical care, re-operations and life-long support received by patients following surgery is required.

Systematic review of the introduction and evaluation of magnetic augmentation of the lower oesophageal sphincter for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND

Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is reported to be an innovative alternative to antireflux surgery for patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Although used in practice, little is known about how it has been evaluated. This study aimed to systematically summarize and appraise the reporting of MSA and its introduction into clinical practice, in the context of guidelines (such as IDEAL) for evaluating innovative surgical devices.

METHODS

Systematic searches were used to identify all published studies reporting MSA insertion. Data collected included patient selection, governance arrangements, surgeon expertise, technique description and outcome reporting.

RESULTS

Searches identified 587 abstracts; 39 full-text papers were included (1 RCT 5 cohort, 3 case-control, 25 case series, 5 case reports). Twenty-one followed US Food and Drug Administration eligibility criteria for MSA insertion. Twenty-six documented that ethical approval was obtained. Two reported that participating surgeons received training in MSA; 18 provided information about how MSA insertion was performed, although techniques varied between studies. Follow-up ranged from 4 weeks to 5 years; in 14 studies, it was less than 1 year.

CONCLUSION

Most studies on MSA lacked information about patient selection, governance, expertise, techniques and outcomes, or varied between studies. Currently, MSA is being used despite a lack of robust evidence for its effectiveness.

Impact on Health-Related Quality of Life of Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery for Lung Cancer

Background

Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) approaches are increasingly used in lung cancer surgery, but little is known about their impact on patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQL). This prospective study measured recovery and HRQL in the year after VATS for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and explored the feasibility of HRQL data collection in patients undergoing VATS or open lung resection.

Patients and Methods

Consecutive patients referred for surgical assessment (VATS or open surgery) for proven/suspected NSCLC completed HRQL and fatigue assessments before and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months post-surgery. Mean HRQL scores were calculated for patients who underwent VATS (segmental, wedge or lobectomy resection). Paired t-tests compared mean HRQL between baseline and expected worst (1 month), early (3 months) and longer-term (12 months) recovery time points.

Results

A total of 92 patients received VATS, and 18 open surgery. Questionnaire response rates were high (pre-surgery 96–100%; follow-up 67–85%). Pre-surgery, VATS patients reported mostly high (good) functional health scores [(European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer) EORTC function scores > 80] and low (mild) symptom scores (EORTC symptom scores < 20). One-month post-surgery, patients reported clinically and statistically significant deterioration in overall health and physical, role and social function (19–36 points), and increased fatigue, pain, dyspnoea, appetite loss and constipation [EORTC 12–26; multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI-20) 3–5]. HRQL had not fully recovered 12 months post-surgery, with reduced physical, role and social function (10–14) and persistent fatigue and dyspnoea (EORTC 12–22; MFI-20 2.7–3.2).

Conclusions

Lung resection has a considerable detrimental impact on patients’ HRQL that is not fully resolved 12 months post-surgery, despite a VATS approach.

Graphic Abstract

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1245/s10434-019-08090-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Laparoscopically assisted versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer-the Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open (ROMIO) study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT)

INTRODUCTION

Surgery (oesophagectomy), with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy, is the main curative treatment for patients with oesophageal cancer. Several surgical approaches can be used to remove an oesophageal tumour. The Ivor Lewis (two-phase procedure) is usually used in the UK. This can be performed as an open oesophagectomy (OO), a laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO) or a totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (TMIO). All three are performed in the National Health Service, with LAO and OO the most common. However, there is limited evidence about which surgical approach is best for patients in terms of survival and postoperative health-related quality of life.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will undertake a UK multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare LAO with OO in adult patients with oesophageal cancer. The primary outcome is patient-reported physical function at 3 and 6 weeks postoperatively and 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include: postoperative complications, survival, disease recurrence, other measures of quality of life, spirometry, success of patient blinding and quality assurance measures. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed comparing LAO with OO. We will embed a randomised substudy to evaluate the safety and evolution of the TMIO procedure and a qualitative recruitment intervention to optimise patient recruitment. We will analyse the primary outcome using a multi-level regression model. Patients will be monitored for up to 3 years after their surgery.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study received ethical approval from the South-West Franchay Research Ethics Committee. We will submit the results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN10386621.

A qualitative study to identify indicators of the quality of wound closure

Background:

Wound healing after surgery may be complicated by surgical site infection (SSI). SSI development may be influenced by surgical techniques surrounding primary wound closure; for example, the standard to which surgical wounds are closed at the end of an operation.

Aim:

This study aimed to identify indicators of the quality of wound closure, and factors affecting this, to enable the future development of a tool to measure the quality of wound closure in the context of abdominal surgery.

Methods:

This study was undertaken within the context of an ongoing feasibility study comparing dressing strategies for patients undergoing abdominal surgery. Content analysis of published literature, non-participant observations of wound closure in the operating theatre, and semi-structured interviews with clinicians were used to identify indicators of the quality of wound closure.

Results:

A long list ( n = 38 domains) was categorized into visible markers indicating the quality of wound closure (e.g. suture visibility, apposition of wound edges, evidence of gaps in the wound or tethering of the skin edges), factors that might influence this (e.g. surgeon’s expertise, time taken to closure the wounds) and patient factors (e.g. obesity, skin conditions).

Conclusions:

This is the first study to investigate what is meant by ‘good wound closure’ and factors that might influence it. Findings will result in the development of a tool to assess quality of primary wound closure.

Evaluation of an early-stage innovation for full-thickness excision of benign colonic polyps using the IDEAL framework

AIMS

Colectomy is the current approach for patients with endoscopically unresectable benign polyps but risks considerable morbidity. Full-thickness laparoendoscopic excision (FLEX) is a novel procedure, specifically developed to treat endoscopically unresectable benign colonic polyps, which could reduce the treatment burden of the current approach and improve outcomes. However, traditional evaluations of surgical innovations lack methodological rigour. This study reports the development and feasibility of the FLEX procedure in selected patients.

METHOD

A prospective development study using the Idea, Development, Evaluation, Assessment, Long-term study (IDEAL) framework was undertaken, by one surgeon, of the FLEX procedure in selected patients with endoscopically unresectable benign colonic polyps. Three-dimensional (3D)-CT colonography reconstructions were used preoperatively to rehearse patient-specific, critical manoeuvres. Targetted, full-thickness excision was performed: after marking the margin of the caecal polyp using circumferential endoscopic argon plasma coagulation, transmural endoscopic sutures were used to evert the bowel and resection was undertaken by laparoscopic linear stapling. Feasibility outcomes (establishing 'local success') included evidence of complete polyp resection without adverse events (especially safe closure of the excision site).

RESULTS

Ten patients [median (interquartile range) age: 74 (59-78) years] with polyp median diameters of 35 (30-41) mm, were referred for and consented to receive the FLEX procedure. During the same time frame, no patient underwent colectomy for benign polyps. One further patient received FLEX for local excision of a presumed malignant polyp because severe comorbidity prohibited standard procedures. The FLEX procedure was successfully performed locally, with complete resection of the polyp and safe closure of the excision site, in eight patients. Three noncompleted procedures were converted to laparoscopic segmental colectomy under the same anaesthetic because of endoscopic inaccessibility (two patients) and transcolonic suture failure (one patient).

CONCLUSIONS

The FLEX procedure is still under development. Early data demonstrate that it is safe for excision of selected benign polyps. Modifications to transcolonic suture delivery are now required and there is a need for wider adoption before more definitive evaluation can be performed.

Introduction and adoption of innovative invasive procedures and devices in the NHS: an in-depth analysis of written policies and qualitative interviews (the INTRODUCE study protocol)

INTRODUCTION

Innovation is key to improving outcomes in healthcare. Innovative pharmaceutical products undergo rigorous phased research evaluation before they are introduced into practice. The introduction of innovative invasive procedures and devices is much less rigorous and phased research, including randomised controlled trials, is not always undertaken. While the innovator (usually a surgeon) may introduce a new or modified procedure/device within the context of formal research, they may also be introduced by applying for local National Health Service (NHS) organisation approval alone. Written policies for the introduction of new procedures and/or devices often form part of this local clinical governance infrastructure; however, little is known about their content or use in practice. This study aims to systematically investigate how new invasive procedures and devices are introduced in NHS England and Wales.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

An in-depth analysis of written policies will be undertaken. This will be supplemented with interviews with key stakeholders. All acute NHS trusts in England and Health Boards in Wales will be systematically approached and asked to provide written policies for the introduction of new invasive procedures and devices. Information on the following will be captured: (1) policy scope, including when new procedures should be introduced within a formal research framework; (2) requirements for patient information provision; (3) outcome reporting and/or monitoring. Data will be extracted using a standardised form developed iteratively within the study team. Semistructured interviews with medical directors, audit and governance leads, and surgeons will explore views regarding the introduction of new invasive procedures into practice, including knowledge of and implementation of current policies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

In-depth analysis of written policies does not require ethics approval. The University of Bristol Ethics Committee (56522) approved the interview component of the study. Findings from this work will be presented at appropriate conferences and will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

What is an invasive procedure? A definition to inform study design, evidence synthesis and research tracking

Worldwide, there are at least 230 million invasive procedures performed annually and most of us will undergo several in our lifetime. There is therefore a need for high-quality evidence to underpin this clinical area. Currently, however, there is no widely accepted definition of an invasive procedure and the terms 'surgery' and 'interventional procedure' are characterised inconsistently. We propose a definition for invasive procedures which addresses the limitations of those currently available. Our definition was developed from an analysis of the 3946 papers from the last decade. A preliminary definition was created based on existing definitions and applied to a variety of papers reporting all types of procedures. This definition was continuously updated and applied iteratively to all articles. The definition has three key components: (1) method of access to the body, (2) instrumentation and (3) requirement for operator skill. It therefore encapsulates all types of invasive procedure regardless of the method of access to the body (incision, natural orifice or percutaneous access), and is relevant whatever the clinical discipline (eg, obstetric, cardiac, dental, interventional cardiology or radiology). Crucially, the definition excludes medicinal products, except where their administration occurs within an invasive procedure (and thereby involves operator skill). The application of a universal definition of an invasive procedure will (1) inform the selection of relevant methods for study design, (2) streamline evidence synthesis and (3) improve research tracking, helping to identify evidence gaps and direct research funds.

Funders improved the management of learning and clustering effects through design and analysis of randomized trials involving surgery

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to provide insight into current practice in planning for, and acknowledging, the presence of learning and clustering effects, by treating center and surgeon, when developing randomized surgical trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Complexities associated with delivering surgical interventions, such as clustering effects, by center or surgeon, and surgical learning should be considered at trial design. Main trial publications, within the wider literature, under-report these considerations. Funded applications, within a 4-year period, from a leading UK funding body were searched. Data were extracted on considerations for learning and clustering effects and the driver, funder, or applicant, behind these.

RESULTS

Fifty trials were eligible. Managing learning through establishing predefined center and surgeon credentials was common. One planned exploratory analysis of learning within center, and two within surgeon. Clustering, by site and surgeon, was often managed through stratifying randomization, with 81% and 60%, respectively, also planning to subsequently adjust analysis. One-third of responses to referees contained funder led changes accounting for learning and/or clustering.

CONCLUSION

This review indicates that researchers do consider impact of learning and clustering, by center and surgeon, during trial development. Furthermore, the funder is identified as a potential driver of considerations.

Does the quality of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assessment in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) differ across cancer types and over time? A pooled analysis of 610 RCTs published between 2004 and 2018

e18218

Background: PRO endpoints are increasingly being used in cancer RCTs. However, the PRO assessment in such trials often suffers from serious methodological shortcomings, and the results seldom impact on clinical policy or practice. Methods: We performed a systematic review to identify RCTs with a PRO endpoint in breast, colorectal, lung, prostate, gynaecological and bladder cancer. A checklist score for quality of PRO reporting (ranging between 0-100), based on that of the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) and the CONSORT PRO extension, was computed for each RCT. Analyses were also conducted by type of PRO endpoint (primary versus secondary) and year of publication (i.e. before and after the publication of the CONSORT PRO extension). Results: We identified 610 RCTs with a total of 323,482 patients. PROs were most frequently used in RCTs of breast (N = 176), followed by lung (N = 123), prostate (N = 108), colorectal (N = 103), gynaecological (N = 83) and bladder (N = 17) cancer. Quality of PRO reporting (mean score: 56.4) was highest in RCTs conducted in prostate cancer (PCa) (Table). Regardless of cancer type, quality of reporting was typically higher in RCTs where PROs were primary endpoints. Quality of reporting was higher for RCTs published after the CONSORT PRO Extension (2013), with the exception of RCTs conducted in PCa, where quality was stable over time. Conclusions: PRO reporting of RCTs conducted in PCa has better quality than in the other cancer sites that were reviewed. Regardless of cancer site, quality of PRO reporting has improved after the publication of the CONSORT PRO Extension. [Table: see text]

Inclusion of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with elderly cancer patients: A systematic review

e18217

Background: Inclusion of PROs in RCTs involving elderly cancer patients may be particularly important, as the elderly are often frail and vulnerable, and treatment decisions need to carefully balance potential burden against benefit. We aimed to determine how many RCTs involving elderly patients have included a PRO endpoint, and identified the most relevant PRO information available in this area. Methods: A systematic review in PubMed/Medline and Cochrane Library identified RCTs with PRO endpoint that enrolled a cancer sample (breast, colorectal, lung, prostate, gynaecological and bladder cancer) with a mean/ median age ≥70 years, published from January 2004 to June 2018. The quality of PRO reporting was evaluated using the ISOQOL-PRO recommended criteria. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction. RCTs meeting at least two-thirds of the recommended criteria were considered as “probably-robust” and therefore most likely to be able to inform patient care. Results: Out of the 610 RCTs with PRO endpoint identified, only 67 RCTs (11%) enrolled a sample that met the above criteria. In 19 RCTs (28.4%) PROs were the primary endpoint and 35 RCTs (52.2%) were conducted in a metastatic population. Less than one-third of these trials (n = 21) were considered as probably-robust. In 10 (47.6%) out of the 21 probably-robust RCTs, PROs favored the experimental arm and in 8 (38.1%) the arms did not differ. Overall survival (OS) was an endpoint in 13 of the probably-robust RCTs. In only 3 of these RCTs (23.1%) did OS improve in the experimental arm and in 10 (76.9%) there was no difference in OS between arms. In about half of the probably-robust trials evaluating OS (n = 7, 53.8%), PROs provided information that contrasted with survival findings. In two RCTs, OS improved in the experimental arm, while PROs either did not change between arms (n = 1) or favoured the control arm (n = 1). Conversely, in 5 RCTs (38.5%), OS did not differ between arms whereas PROs favoured the experimental arm. Conclusions: Among cancer RCTs including PROs, the proportion of those conducted in the elderly is low. However, PRO data may provide useful information for these type of patients and their clinicians.

Developing a real-time electronic symptom monitoring system for patients after discharge following cancer-related surgery

Background

Patients undergoing major cancer surgery frequently require post-acute care for complications and adverse effects. Enhanced recovery after surgery programmes mean that patients are increasingly discharged home earlier. Symptom/complication detection post-discharge is sub-optimal. Systematic patient monitoring post-discharge following surgery may be optimally achieved through routine electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) data capture. ePRO systems that employ clinical algorithms to guide management of patients and automatically alert clinicians of clinically-concerning symptoms can improve patient outcomes and decrease hospital admissions. ePRO systems that provide individually-tailored self-management advice and integrate live ePRO data into electronic health records (EHR) may also advance personalised health and patient-centred care. This study aims to develop a hospital EHR-integrated ePRO system to improve detection and management of complications post-discharge following cancer-related surgery.

Methods

The ePRO system was developed in two phases: (1) Development of a web-based ePRO symptom-report from validated European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires, clinical opinion and patient interviews, followed by hospital EHR integration; (2) Development of clinical algorithms triggering symptom severity-dependent patient advice and clinician alerts from: (i) prospectively-collected patient-completed ePRO symptom-report data; (ii) stakeholder meetings; (iii) patient interviews. Patient advice was developed from: (i) clinician-patient telephone consultations and patient interviews; (ii) review of hospital patient information leaflets (PIL) and patient support websites.

Results

Phase 1, including interviews with 18 patients, identified 35 symptom-report items. In phase 2, 130/300 (43%) screened patients were eligible. 61 (47%) consented to participate and 59 (97%) provided 444 complete self-reports. Stakeholder meetings (9 clinicians, 1 patient/public representative) and patient interviews (n = 66) refined advice/alert accuracy. 15 telephone consultations, 7 patient interviews and review of 28 PILs and 3 patient support websites identified 4 themes to inform self-management advice. Comparisons between ePRO symptom-report data, telephone consultations and clinical events/outcomes (n = 27 patients) further refined clinical algorithms.

Conclusions

A hospital EHR-integrated ePRO system that alerts clinicians and provides patient self-management advice has been developed to improve the detection and management of problems and complications after discharge following surgery. An ongoing pilot study will inform a multicentre randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the ePRO system compared to usual care.

Improvement was needed in the standards of development for cancer core outcome sets

OBJECTIVE

The Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) contains 11 standards (12 criteria) that are deemed to be the minimum design recommendations for all core outcome set (COS) development projects. Cancer is currently the disease area with the highest number of published COSs and is a major cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to provide a baseline of cancer COS standards.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic reviews of COSs have identified 307 published COS studies. Cancer COSs were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently assessed each of the COSs against the 12 criteria.

RESULTS

Forty-nine cancer COSs were included; none met all 12 criteria representing the 11 minimum standards assessed in this study (range = 4-11 criteria, median = 6 criteria). All studies met the four scope standards, eight (16%) met all three standards for stakeholders involved, and two (4%) met all four standards for consensus process standards.

CONCLUSION

With the exception of "scope" specification, there is much need for improvement. Poor reporting often made it challenging to assess whether minimum standards were met. The consensus process criteria were most difficult to assess, particularly those that required an assessment of being a priori. This is the first application of COS-STAD criteria to studies that have developed COSs and provides a baseline of cancer COS standards of development.

Systematic review of clinical outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of burn care

INTRODUCTION

Systematic reviews collate trial data to provide evidence to support clinical decision-making. For effective synthesis, there must be consistency in outcome reporting. There is no agreed set of outcomes for reporting the effect of burn care interventions. Issues with outcome reporting have been identified, although not systematically investigated. This study gathers empirical evidence on any variation in outcome reporting and assesses the need for a core outcome set for burn care research.

METHODS

Electronic searches of four search engines were undertaken from January 2012 to December 2016 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), using medical subject headings and free text terms including 'burn', 'scald' 'thermal injury' and 'RCT'. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted outcomes verbatim and recorded the timing of outcome measurement. Duplicate outcomes (exact wording ± different spelling), similar outcomes (albumin in blood, serum albumin) and identical outcomes measured at different times were removed. Variation in outcome reporting was determined by assessing the number of unique outcomes reported across all included trials. Outcomes were classified into domains. Bias was reduced using five researchers and a patient working independently and together.

RESULTS

147 trials were included, of which 127 (86.4%) were RCTs, 13 (8.8%) pilot studies and 7 (4.8%) RCT protocols. 1494 verbatim clinical outcomes were reported; 955 were unique. 76.8% of outcomes were measured within 6 months of injury. Commonly reported outcomes were defined differently. Numbers of unique outcomes per trial varied from one to 37 (median 9; IQR 5,13). No single outcome was reported across all studies demonstrating inconsistency of reporting. Outcomes were classified into 54 domains. Numbers of outcomes per domain ranged from 1 to 166 (median 11; IQR 3,24).

CONCLUSIONS

This review has demonstrated heterogeneity in outcome reporting in burn care research which will hinder amalgamation of study data. We recommend the development of a Core Outcome Set.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017060908.

Core Outcome Set-STAndardised Protocol Items: the COS-STAP Statement

BACKGROUND

Several hundred core outcome set (COS) projects have been systematically identified to date which, if adopted, ensure that researchers measure and report those outcomes that are most likely to be relevant to users of their research. The uptake of a COS by COS users will depend in part on the transparency and robustness of the methods used in the COS development study, which would be increased by the use of a standardised protocol. This article describes the development of the COS-STAP (Core Outcome Set-STAndardised Protocol Items) Statement for the content of a COS development study protocol.

METHODS

The COS-STAP Statement was developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency Of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's methodological framework for guideline development. This included an initial item generation stage, a two-round Delphi survey involving more than 150 participants representing three stakeholder groups (COS developers, journal editors and patient and public involvement researchers interested in COS development), followed by a consensus meeting with eight voting participants.

RESULTS

The COS-STAP Statement consists of a checklist of 13 items considered essential documentation in a protocol, outlining the scope of the COS, stakeholder involvement, COS development plans and consensus processes.

CONCLUSIONS

Journal editors and peer reviewers can use the guidance to assess the completeness of a COS development study protocol submitted for publication. By providing guidance for key content, the COS-STAP Statement will enhance the drafting of high-quality protocols and determine how the COS development study will be carried out.

Short-term safety outcomes of mastectomy and immediate implant-based breast reconstruction with and without mesh (iBRA): a multicentre, prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Use of biological or synthetic mesh might improve outcomes of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction-breast reconstruction with implants or expanders at the time of mastectomy-but there is a lack of high-quality evidence to support the safety or effectiveness of the technique. We aimed to establish the short-term safety of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction performed with and without mesh, to inform the feasibility of undertaking a future randomised clinical trial comparing different breast reconstruction techniques.

METHODS

In this prospective, multicentre cohort study, we consecutively recruited women aged 16 years or older who had any type of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction for malignancy or risk reduction, with any technique, at 81 participating breast and plastic surgical units in the UK. Data about patient demographics and operative, oncological, and complication details were collected before and after surgery. Outcomes of interest were implant loss (defined as unplanned removal of the expander or implant), infection requiring treatment with antibiotics or surgery, unplanned return to theatre, and unplanned re-admission to hospital for complications of reconstructive surgery, up to 3 months after reconstruction and assessed by clinical review or patient self-report. Follow-up is complete. The study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN37664281.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016, 2108 patients had 2655 mastectomies with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction at 81 units across the UK. 1650 (78%) patients had planned single-stage reconstructions (including 12 patients who had a different technique per breast). 1376 (65%) patients had reconstruction with biological (1133 [54%]) or synthetic (243 [12%]) mesh, 181 (9%) had non-mesh submuscular or subfascial implants, 440 (21%) had dermal sling implants, 42 (2%) had pre-pectoral implants, and 79 (4%) had other or a combination of implants. 3-month outcome data were available for 2081 (99%) patients. Of these patients, 182 (9%, 95% CI 8-10) experienced implant loss, 372 (18%, 16-20) required re-admission to hospital, and 370 (18%, 16-20) required return to theatre for complications within 3 months of their initial surgery. 522 (25%, 95% CI 23-27) patients required treatment for an infection. The rates of all of these complications are higher than those in the National Quality Standards (<5% for re-operation, re-admission, and implant loss, and <10% for infection).

INTERPRETATION

Complications after immediate implant-based breast reconstruction are higher than recommended by national standards. A randomised clinical trial is needed to establish the optimal approach to immediate implant-based breast reconstruction.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research, Association of Breast Surgery, and British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons.

Evidence into practice: protocol for a new mixed-methods approach to explore the relationship between trials evidence and clinical practice through systematic identification and analysis of articles citing randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide high-quality evidence to inform practice. However, much routine care is not based on available RCT evidence. Understanding this disconnect may improve trial design, reporting and implementation. Published literature commenting on RCTs may yield relevant insights. This protocol presents a new approach examining how researchers understand, contextualise and use evidence from RCTs, through analysis of letters, editorials and discussion pieces citing individual RCTs. Surgical case studies will illustrate its ability to identify wide-ranging factors influencing application of trials evidence.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In-depth study of published literature will explore written responses to RCTs. After purposefully selecting individual RCTs, we will systematically identify all citing articles covered in Web of Science and Scopus. Editorials, discussions and letters will be included. These are considered most likely to provide critiques and opinions about index RCTs. Original articles and reviews will be excluded. Clinical specialty, RCT design, outcomes and bibliographical data will be collected for RCTs and citing articles. Citing articles will be thematically analysed using the constant comparison technique to explore author understanding, contextualisation and relationship to clinical practice for the index trial. Coding will include generic issues relevant to all RCTs, such as sample size or blinding, and features specific to surgery, such as learning curve. Index trial quality will be examined using validated tools. Results will be combined to create a broad overview of the understanding and use of RCT evidence.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study involves secondary use of existing articles and does not require ethical approval. Pilot work will establish its feasibility and inform progression to larger scale utilisation across a broad range of RCTs. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at surgical and methodological conferences. Results will guide future work on trial design to optimise implementation of results.

Reducing attrition within clinical trials: The communication of retention and withdrawal within patient information leaflets

BACKGROUND

The recruitment and retention of patients are significant methodological challenges for trials. Whilst research has focussed on recruitment, the failure to retain recruited patients and collect outcome data can lead to additional problems and potentially biased results. Research to identify effective retention strategies has focussed on influencing patient behaviour through incentives, reminders and alleviating patient burden, but has not sought to improve patient understanding of the importance of retention. Our aim is to assess how withdrawal, retention and the value of outcome data collection is described within the Patient Information Leaflets (PIL) used during consent.

METHODS

Fifty adult or parent PIL from a cohort of trials starting between 2009-2012 and funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme were obtained from protocols, websites or by contacting trialists. A checklist of PIL content based on Health Research Authority (HRA) and ICH GCP Guidelines was supplemented with retention specific questions. Corresponding protocols were also evaluated to cross reference trial specific procedures with information communicated to patients.

RESULTS

PIL frequently reiterated the patient's right to withdraw at any time (n = 49, 98%), without having to give a reason and without penalty (n = 45, 90%). However, few informed patients they may be asked to give a withdrawal reason where willing (n = 6, 12%). Statements about the value of retention were infrequent (n = 8, 16%). Consent documents failed to include key content that might mitigate withdrawals, such as the need for treatment equipoise (n = 3, 6%). Nearly half the trials in the cohort (n = 23, 46%) wanted to continue to collect outcome data if patients withdraw. However, in 70% of PIL using prospective consent, withdrawal was described in generic terms leaving patients unaware of the difference between stopping treatment and all trial involvement. Nineteen (38%) trials offered withdrawing patients the option to delete existing data.

CONCLUSIONS

Withdrawal and retention is poorly described within PIL and addressing this might positively impact levels of patient attrition, reducing missing data. Consent information is unbalanced, focussing on patient's rights to withdraw without accompanying information that promotes robust consent and sustained participation. With many citing altruistic reasons for participation it is essential that PIL include more information on retention and clarify withdrawal terminology so patients are aware of how they can make a valuable contribution to clinical studies. There is a need to determine how retention can be described to patients to avoid concerns of coercion. Future research is needed to explore whether the absence of information about retention at the time of consent is impacting attrition.

Reporting of outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The development of clinical guidelines for the surgical management of gastric cancer should be based on robust evidence from well-designed trials. Being able to reliably compare and combine the outcomes of these trials is a key factor in this process.

OBJECTIVES

To examine variation in outcome reporting by surgical trials for gastric cancer and to identify outcomes for prioritisation in an international consensus study to develop a core outcome set in this field.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic literature searches (Evidence Based Medicine, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) and a review of study protocols of randomised controlled trials, published between 1996 and 2016.

INTERVENTION

Therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer. Outcomes were listed verbatim, categorised into groups (outcome themes) and examined for definitions and measurement instruments.

RESULTS

Of 1919 abstracts screened, 32 trials (9073 participants) were identified. A total of 749 outcomes were reported of which 96 (13%) were accompanied by an attempted definition. No single outcome was reported by all trials. 'Adverse events' was the most frequently reported 'outcome theme' in which 240 unique terms were described. 12 trials (38%) classified complications according to severity, with 5 (16%) using a formal classification system (Clavien-Dindo or Accordion scale). Of 27 trials which described 'short-term' mortality, 15 (47%) used one of five different definitions. 6 out of the 32 trials (19%) described 'patient-reported outcomes'.

CONCLUSION

Reporting of outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials is inconsistent. A consensus approach to develop a minimum set of well-defined, standardised outcomes to be used by all future trials examining therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer is needed. This should consider the views of all key stakeholders, including patients.

Recommendations on the most suitable quality-of-life measurement instruments for bariatric and body contouring surgery: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to systematically assess the quality of existing patient-reported outcome measures developed and/or validated for Quality of Life measurement in bariatric surgery (BS) and body contouring surgery (BCS).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews and CENTRAL identifying studies on measurement properties of BS and BCS Quality of Life instruments. For all eligible studies, we evaluated the methodological quality of the studies by using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist and the quality of the measurement instruments by applying quality criteria. Four degrees of recommendation were assigned to validated instruments (A-D).

RESULTS

Out of 4,354 articles, a total of 26 articles describing 24 instruments were included. No instrument met all requirements (category A). Seven instruments have the potential to be recommended depending on further validation studies (category B). Of these seven, the BODY-Q has the strongest evidence for content validity in BS and BCS. Two instruments had poor quality in at least one required quality criterion (category C). Fifteen instruments were minimally validated (category D).

CONCLUSION

The BODY-Q, developed for BS and BCS, possessed the strongest evidence for quality of measurement properties and has the potential to be recommended in future clinical trials.