DELTA2 guidance on choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial

Comparison of surgical or non-surgical management for non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury: the ACL SNNAP RCT

Background

Anterior cruciate ligament injury of the knee is common and leads to decreased activity and risk of secondary osteoarthritis of the knee. Management of patients with a non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury can be non-surgical (rehabilitation) or surgical (reconstruction). However, insufficient evidence exists to guide treatment.

Objective(s)

To determine in patients with non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury and symptoms of instability whether a strategy of surgical management (reconstruction) without prior rehabilitation was more clinically and cost-effective than non-surgical management (rehabilitation).

Design

A pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial with two-arm parallel groups and 1:1 allocation. Due to the nature of the interventions, no blinding could be carried out.

Setting

Twenty-nine NHS orthopaedic units in the United Kingdom.

Participants

Participants with a symptomatic (instability) non-acute anterior cruciate ligament-injured knee.

Interventions

Patients in the surgical management arm underwent surgical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction as soon as possible and without any further rehabilitation. Patients in the rehabilitation arm attended physiotherapy sessions and only were listed for reconstructive surgery on continued instability following rehabilitation. Surgery following initial rehabilitation was an expected outcome for many patients and within protocol.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score 4 at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included return to sport/activity, intervention-related complications, patient satisfaction, expectations of activity, generic health quality of life, knee-specific quality of life and resource usage.

Results

Three hundred and sixteen participants were recruited between February 2017 and April 2020 with 156 randomised to surgical management and 160 to rehabilitation. Forty-one per cent (n = 65) of those allocated to rehabilitation underwent subsequent reconstruction within 18 months with 38% (n = 61) completing rehabilitation and not undergoing surgery. Seventy-two per cent (n = 113) of those allocated to surgery underwent reconstruction within 18 months. Follow-up at the primary outcome time point was 78% (n = 248; surgical, n = 128; rehabilitation, n = 120). Both groups improved over time. Adjusted mean Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score 4 scores at 18 months had increased to 73.0 in the surgical arm and to 64.6 in the rehabilitation arm. The adjusted mean difference was 7.9 (95% confidence interval 2.5 to 13.2; p = 0.005) in favour of surgical management. The per-protocol analyses supported the intention-to-treat results, with all treatment effects favouring surgical management at a level reaching statistical significance. There was a significant difference in Tegner Activity Score at 18 months. Sixty-eight per cent (n = 65) of surgery patients did not reach their expected activity level compared to 73% (n = 63) in the rehabilitation arm. There were no differences between groups in surgical complications (n = 1 surgery, n = 2 rehab) or clinical events (n = 11 surgery, n = 12 rehab). Of surgery patients, 82.9% were satisfied compared to 68.1% of rehabilitation patients. Health economic analysis found that surgical management led to improved health-related quality of life compared to non-surgical management (0.052 quality-adjusted life-years, p = 0.177), but with higher NHS healthcare costs (£1107, p < 0.001). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the surgical management programme versus rehabilitation was £19,346 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Using £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year thresholds, surgical management is cost-effective in the UK setting with a probability of being the most cost-effective option at 51% and 72%, respectively.

Limitations

Not all surgical patients underwent reconstruction, but this did not affect trial interpretation. The adherence to physiotherapy was patchy, but the trial was designed as pragmatic.

Conclusions

Surgical management (reconstruction) for non-acute anterior cruciate ligament-injured patients was superior to non-surgical management (rehabilitation). Although physiotherapy can still provide benefit, later-presenting non-acute anterior cruciate ligament-injured patients benefit more from surgical reconstruction without delaying for a prior period of rehabilitation.

Future work

Confirmatory studies and those to explore the influence of fidelity and compliance will be useful.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10110685; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02980367.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/140/63) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 27. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Comparative effectiveness of digital mental healthcare models for adults with epilepsy: A study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Mental health complaints are prevalent among people with epilepsy, yet there are major barriers that prevent access to psychological care, including high out-of-pocket costs and a lack of accessible specialized services. The purpose of the current study is to examine the comparative efficacy, acceptability, cost-effectiveness, and long-term outcomes of a digital psychological intervention when delivered under two models of care (i.e., guided vs. unguided) in supporting the mental health and functioning of adults with epilepsy.

METHOD

Approximately 375 participants across Australia will be enrolled. Eligible participants will have a confirmed diagnosis of epilepsy, experience difficulties with their emotional health, be at least 18 years of age, and live in Australia. Participants will be randomized (2:2:1) to receive the Wellbeing Neuro Course, a 10-week internet-delivered program, with (i.e., guided) or without guidance by a mental health clinician (i.e., unguided), or be allocated to a treatment-as-usual waiting-list control group. Participants will complete online questionnaires at pre-, post-treatment, and 3- and 12-month follow-up and consent to have their data linked to their medical records to capture healthcare system resource use and costs.

ANALYSIS

Primary outcome measures will be symptoms of depression and anxiety. A cost-utility analysis will be undertaken using the Australian healthcare system perspective and according to current economic evaluation guidelines. Resource use and costs to the healthcare system during the study period will be captured via data linkage to relevant administrative datasets in Australia.

SIGNIFICANCE

The results of this trial will provide important data concerning the relative outcomes of these different models of care and will inform the integration of digital psychological interventions translation into healthcare services.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Human Research Ethics Committee of Macquarie University approved the proposed study (Reference No: 520231325151475). The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication(s).

ANZCTR TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12623001327673.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

This study seeks to find out if a 10-week online psychological treatment can improve the mental health and well-being of Australian adults with epilepsy. Around 375 participants will be randomly assigned to different groups: one will receive treatment with guidance from mental health clinician (guided group), one without guidance (unguided group), and one starting later (waiting control group). All participants will fill out the same outcome measures online. The main goal of this research is to compare these groups and assess how well the treatment works in improving mental health outcomes.

A randomized controlled trial comparing the effects of self-reflective writing focused on successful and unsuccessful coping experiences on resilience

Evidence supports the effectiveness of self-reflective training approaches for the development of resilience. Building this work, the objective of this study was to investigate the impact of the focus of coping self-reflective activities on resilience by applying a self-reflection approach to a sample of 254 Australian ministry workers. This randomized controlled trial included three attention-matched conditions: (1) self-reflective writing focused on successful coping, (2) self-reflective writing focused on unsuccessful coping or (3) written descriptions of stressor events alone. Participants were assessed across four time points: prior to, immediately post, 3-months, and 6-months after the intervention. Results demonstrated that self-reflective writing was more effective in enhancing perceived resilience than descriptive writing. Analyses also showed greater maintenance of beneficial effects in the successful self-reflection condition, compared to the unsuccessful condition. These findings support the use of self-reflection training to strengthen individuals' psychological resilience, particularly when focused on successful coping situations for those who initially experience more ruminative thought.

Exploring the feasibility of evaluating a community alliance welfare advice programme co-located in primary care in Bradford: an uncontrolled before and after study

BACKGROUND

Welfare advice services co-located in health settings are known to improve financial security. However, little is known on how to effectively evaluate these services. This study aims to explore the feasibility of evaluating a welfare advice service co-located in a primary care setting in a deprived and ethnically diverse population. It seeks to investigate whether the proposed evaluation tools and processes are acceptable and feasible to implement and whether they are able to detect any evidence of promise for this intervention on the mental health, wellbeing and financial security of participants.

METHODS

An uncontrolled before and after study design was utilised. Data on mental health, wellbeing, quality of life and financial outcomes were collected at baseline prior to receiving welfare advice and at three months follow-up. Multiple logistic and linear regression models were used to explore individual differences in self-reported financial security and changes to mental health, wellbeing and quality of life scores before and after the provision of welfare advice.

RESULTS

Overall, the majority of key outcome measures were well completed, indicating participant acceptability of the mental health, wellbeing, quality of life and financial outcome measures used in this population. There was evidence suggestive of an improvement in participant financial security and evidence of promise for improvements in measured wellbeing and health-related quality of life for participants accessing services in a highly ethnically diverse population. Overall, the VCS Alliance welfare advice programme generated a total of £21,823.05 for all participants, with participants gaining an average of £389.70 per participant for participants with complete financial outcome data.

CONCLUSIONS

This research demonstrates the feasibility of evaluating a welfare advice service co-located in primary care in a deprived and ethnically diverse setting utilising the ascribed mental health, wellbeing and quality of life and financial outcome tools. It provides evidence of promise to support the hypothesis that the implementation of a welfare advice service co-located in a health setting can improve health and wellbeing and reduce health inequalities.

OARSI year in review 2023: Rehabilitation and outcomes

OBJECTIVE

We systematically reviewed the literature to identify comparative studies of core treatments (exercise, education, or weight management), adjunct treatments (e.g. electrotherapeutical modalities, bracing), or multimodal treatments (core plus other treatments), for treating osteoarthritis (OA) complaints, published between 1 March 2022 and 1 March 2023.

DESIGN

We searched three electronic databases for peer-reviewed comparative studies evaluating core treatments, adjunct treatments, or multimodal treatments for OA affecting any joint, in comparison to other OA treatments. Two authors independently screened records. Methodological quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. A narrative synthesis focusing on pain and function outcomes was performed in studies with a mean sample size of at least 46 participants per treatment arm.

RESULTS

33 publications (28 studies), 82% with PEDro ratings of good or excellent, were eligible for narrative synthesis: 23 studies evaluated knee OA; one knee OA or chronic low back pain; two knee or hip OA; one hip OA only; and one thumb OA. No studies identified a dose, duration or type of exercise that resulted in better pain or function outcomes. Core treatments generally showed modest benefits compared to no or minimal intervention controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Rehabilitation research continues to be focused on the knee. Most studies are not adequately powered to assess pain efficacy. Further work is needed to better account for contextual effects, identify treatment responder characteristics, understand treatment mechanisms, and implement guideline care.

Psychometric sensitivity analyses can identify bias related to measurement properties in trials that use patient-reported outcome measures: a secondary analysis of a clinical trial using the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand questionnaire

OBJECTIVES

Demonstrate psychometric sensitivity analyses for testing the stability of study findings to assumptions made about patient-reported outcome measures.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We performed secondary analyses of Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) data collected within the Prevention of Shoulder Problems clinical trial, which compared upper limb function scores in women who had undergone breast cancer surgery, randomized to either an exercise program or usual care. We repeated the principal trial analyses after grouping DASH items into subscales suggested by factorial analyses in this dataset and applied item response theory to account for unequal item weighting. We checked for measurement invariance by participant age and response shift bias using established techniques.

RESULTS

Our analyses suggested that the DASH measured two constructs: motor function and sensory symptoms. The majority of the six-month difference in DASH score was driven by motor function. With item response theory scoring, we found differences in both constructs at 12 months (P = 0.019 and P = 0.007), but in neither construct at 6 months, contrary to the original trial results. We found no differential item function by age or between baseline and 12-month measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychometric sensitivity analyses aid in the interpretation of the Prevention of Shoulder Problems trial's results.

Clinically important effect sizes for clinical trials using infarct growth reduction as the primary outcome: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Infarct growth on multimodal imaging is a common lead outcome in phase 2 proof-of-concept and dose-optimization neuroprotective agent stroke trials. However, the effect size in infarct growth reduction that correlates with clinically meaningful differences in clinical global disability outcomes has not been well delineated.

METHODS

A systematic literature search identified all endovascular thrombectomy randomized trials reporting magnitude of treatment effect on both infarct growth reduction and increase in functional independence (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0-2). Data aggregation determined the size of infarct growth reductions salient to four types of clinically meaningful effect sizes of increase in functional independence: (1) the minimal clinically important difference (MCID)-outcome specific; (2) the MCID-practice changing; (3) the realistic target difference; and (4) the reasonable comparability effect size.

RESULTS

A systematic search identified four trials enrolling 612 imaged participants. Across the trials, the amount of functional independence (mRS 0-2) increase associated with each 1 mL reduction in infarct growth was mean 2.3±0.6%. An infarct growth reduction of 0.57 mL correlated with the mRS 0-2 increase MCID of 1.3%. Infarct growth reductions of 2.27 mL, 4.35 mL, and 6.53 mL correlated with realistic effect and reasonable comparability effects sizes of mRS 0-2 increases of 5%, 10%, and 15%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In formal meta-analysis of randomized treatment trials, every 1 mL reduction in infarct growth was associated with a 2.3% increase in functional independence (mRS 0-2) at 3 months. This conversion factor can inform selection of infarct growth effect size targets for phase 2 trials of neuroprotective agents.

Using the Delphi process to determine the minimum clinically important effect size for the Balanced-2 randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The sample size calculation is an important step in designing randomised controlled trials. For a trial comparing a control and an intervention group, where the outcome is binary, the sample size calculation requires choosing values for the anticipated event rates in both the control and intervention groups (the effect size), and the error rates. The Difference ELicitation in TriAls guidance recommends that the effect size should be both realistic, and clinically important to stakeholder groups. Overestimating the effect size leads to sample sizes that are too small to reliably detect the true population effect size, which in turn results in low achieved power. In this study, we use the Delphi approach to gain consensus on what the minimum clinically important effect size is for Balanced-2, a randomised controlled trial comparing processed electroencephalogram-guided 'light' to 'deep' general anaesthesia on the incidence of postoperative delirium in older adults undergoing major surgery.

METHODS

Delphi rounds were conducted using electronic surveys. Surveys were administered to two stakeholder groups: specialist anaesthetists from a general adult department in Auckland City Hospital, New Zealand (Group 1), and specialist anaesthetists with expertise in clinical research, identified from the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetist's Clinical Trials Network (Group 2). A total of 187 anaesthetists were invited to participate (81 from Group 1 and 106 from Group 2). Results from each Delphi round were summarised and presented in subsequent rounds until consensus was reached (>70% agreement).

RESULTS

The overall response rate for the first Delphi survey was 47% (88/187). The median minimum clinically important effect size was 5.0% (interquartile range: 5.0-10.0) for both stakeholder groups. The overall response rate for the second Delphi survey was 51% (95/187). Consensus was reached after the second round, as 74% of respondents in Group 1 and 82% of respondents in Group 2 agreed with the median effect size. The combined minimum clinically important effect size across both groups was 5.0% (interquartile range: 3.0-6.5).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that surveying stakeholder groups using a Delphi process is a simple way of defining a minimum clinically important effect size, which aids the sample size calculation and determines whether a randomised study is feasible.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of surgical treatments for ingrown toenails part II: healing time, post-operative complications, pain, and participant satisfaction

BACKGROUND

When performing nail surgery, clinicians must choose from a multitude of procedures and variations within each procedure. Much has been published to guide this decision making, but there are a lack of up to date robust systematic reviews to assess the totality of this evidence.

METHODS

Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and CENTRAL) and two registers (Clinicaltrials.gov and ISRCTN) were searched to January 2022 for randomised trials evaluating the effects of a surgical intervention(s) for ingrown toenails. Two independent reviewers screened records, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence. Data on co-primary outcomes of symptom relief and symptomatic regrowth were presented in our first paper. This paper presents data for the secondary outcomes and further discussion.

RESULTS

Of 3,928 records identified, 36 randomised trials were included in the systematic review. Healing time appears to be reduced with shorter application of phenol. A reduced healing time was also apparent was with the addition of curettage, although this may also increase the risk of post-operative bleeding and pain. Post operative bleeding was also reportedly lower in people who received local anaesthetic with epinephrine but no tourniquet. Use of phenol with nail bed excision may decrease the risk of infection. Lower pain scores were reported when using partial matrixectomy and surgical interventions with phenol. Shorter duration of pain was reported with phenolisation and wedge resection. Participant satisfaction was high overall.

CONCLUSION

This second paper reports secondary outcomes from a robust systematic review of randomised trials on surgical treatment of ingrown toenails. Despite the large volume of clinical trials conducted on the topic, few clinical conclusions can be drawn due to the poor quality of these studies. Further high-quality clinical trials are needed to answer fundamental questions in the surgical treatment of ingrown toenails.

Disease activity-guided tapering of biologics in patients with inflammatory arthritis: a pragmatic, randomized, open-label, equivalence trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether disease activity-guided tapering of biologics compared to continuation as usual care enables a substantial dose reduction while disease activity remains equivalent.

METHOD

In this pragmatic, randomized, open-label, equivalence trial, adults with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, or axial spondyloarthritis in low disease activity on stable-dose biologics for ≥ 12 months were randomized 2:1 into either the tapering group, i.e. disease activity-guided prolongation of the biologic dosing interval until flare or withdrawal, or the control group, i.e. maintaince of baseline biologics with a possible small interval increase at the patients request. The co-primary outcome in the intention-to-treat population was met if superiority in ≥ 50% biologic reduction at 18 months was demonstrated and disease activity was equivalent (equivalence margins ± 0.5).

RESULTS

Ninety-five patients were randomized to tapering and 47 to control, of whom 37% (35/95) versus 2% (1/47) achieved ≥ 50% biologic reduction at 18 months. The risk difference was statistically significant [35%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 24%-45%], while disease activity remained equivalent [mean difference 0.05, 95% CI -0.12-0.29]. A statistically significant flare risk was observed [tapering 41% (39/95) vs control 21% (10/47), risk difference 20%, 95% CI 4%-35%]; but, only 1% (1/95) and 6% (3/47) had persistent flare and needed to switch to another biological drug.

CONCLUSIONS

Disease activity-guided tapering of biologics in patients with inflammatory arthritis enabled one-third to achieve ≥ 50% biologic reduction, while disease activity between groups remained equivalent. Flares were more frequent in the tapering group but were managed with rescue therapy.

Observed intervention effects for mortality in randomised clinical trials: a methodological study protocol

INTRODUCTION

It is essential to choose a realistic anticipated intervention effect when calculating a sample size for a randomised clinical trial. Unfortunately, anticipated intervention effects are often inflated, when compared with the 'true' intervention effects. This is documented for mortality in critical care trials. A similar pattern might exist across different medical specialties. This study aims to estimate the range of observed intervention effects for all-cause mortality in trials included in Cochrane Reviews, within each Cochrane Review Group.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will include randomised clinical trials assessing all-cause mortality as an outcome. Trials will be identified from Cochrane Reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Cochrane Reviews will be clustered according to the registered Cochrane Review Group (eg, Anaesthesia, Emergency and Critical Care) and the statistical analyses will be conducted for each Cochrane Review Group and overall. The median relative risk and IQR for all-cause mortality and the proportion of trials with a relative all-cause mortality risk within seven different ranges will be reported (relative risk below 0.70, 0.70-0.79, 0.80-0.89, 0.90-1.09, 1.10-1.19, 1.20-1.30 and above 1.30). Subgroup analyses will explore the effects of original design, sample size, risk of bias, disease, intervention type, follow-up length, participating centres, funding type, information size and outcome hierarchy.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Since we will use summary data from trials already approved by relevant ethical committees, this study does not require ethical approval. Regardless of our findings, the results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials on surgical treatments for ingrown toenails part I: recurrence and relief of symptoms

BACKGROUND

Ingrown toenails are a common nail pathology. When conservative treatments are ineffective, a surgical approach is often utilised. Despite recent narrative reviews, there is a need for an up-to-date and rigorous systematic review of surgical methods for treating ingrown toenails.

METHODS

Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and CENTRAL) and two registers (Clinicaltrials.gov and ISRCTN) were searched to January 2022 for randomised trials evaluating the effects of a surgical intervention(s) for ingrown toenails with a follow-up of at least 1 month. Two independent reviewers screened records, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Of 3,928 records identified, 36 (3,756 participants; 62.7% males) surgical interventions were included in the systematic review and 31 studies in the meta-analysis. There was very low quality evidence that using phenol with nail avulsion vs nail avulsion without phenol reduces the risk of recurrence (risk ratio [RR] 0.13 [95% CI 0.06 to 0.27], p < 0.001). No favourable effect was observed between chemical or surgical vs conservative management (0.55 [0.19 to 1.61], p = 0.280; 0.72 [0.33 to 1.56], p = 0.410), chemical or surgical vs other (e.g., CO2 laser, electrocautery) (1.61 [0.88 to 2.95], p = 0.120; 0.58 [0.25 to 1.37], p = 0.220), chemical vs surgical (0.75 [0.46 to 1.21], p = 0.230), surgical vs surgical (0.42 [0.21 to 0.85]), chemical vs chemical (0.19 [0.01 to 3.80], p = 0.280), surgical vs surgical + chemical (3.68 [0.20 to 67.35], p = 0.380), chemical vs surgical + chemical (1.92 [0.06 to 62.30], p = 0.710), local anaesthetic vs local anaesthetic + adrenaline (1.03 [0.22 to 4.86], p = 0.970), chemical timings 30 s vs 60 s (2.00 [0.19 to 21.41]) or antibiotics vs no antibiotics (0.54 [0.12 to 2.52], p = 0.430). Central toenail resection was the only procedure to significantly relieve symptoms (p = 0.001) but data were only available up to 8 weeks post-surgery.

CONCLUSION

Despite the high number of publications, the quality of research was poor and the conclusions that can be inferred from existing trials is limited. Phenolisation of the nail matrix appears to reduce the risk of recurrence following nail ablation, and with less certainty 1 min appears to be the optimum time for application. Despite this being a widely performed procedure there remains a lack of good quality evidence to guide practice.

The effect of group-based cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to compare the effect of cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) to usual care on sleep efficiency, measured by polysomnography (PSG) immediately after the intervention at week 7. Secondary objectives included comparing the longer-term effect on sleep- and RA-related outcomes at week 26.

METHODS

In a randomized controlled trial using a parallel group design, the experimental intervention was 6 weeks' nurse-led group-based CBT-I; the comparator was usual care. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle; missing data were statistically modelled using repeated-measures linear mixed effects models adjusted for the level at baseline.

RESULTS

The ITT population consisted of 62 patients (89% women), with an average age of 58 years and an average sleep efficiency of 83.1%. At primary end point, sleep efficiency was 88.7% in the CBT-I group, compared with 83.7% in the control group (difference: 5.03 [95% CI -0.37, 10.43]; P = 0.068) measured by PSG at week 7. Key secondary outcomes measured with PSG had not improved at week 26. However, for all the patient-reported key secondary sleep- and RA-related outcomes, there were statistically highly significant differences between CBT-I and usual care (P < 0.0001), e.g. insomnia (Insomnia Severity Index: -9.85 [95% CI -11.77, -7.92]) and the RA impact of disease (RAID: -1.36 [95% CI -1.92, -0.80]) at week 26.

CONCLUSION

Nurse-led group-based CBT-I did not lead to an effect on sleep efficiency objectively measured with PSG. However, CBT-I showed improvement on all patient-reported key secondary sleep- and RA-related outcomes measured at week 26.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03766100.

Tranexamic acid for gastrointestinal bleeding: can a reduction in the risk of death be discounted? A systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 64 724 bleeding patients

OBJECTIVES

HALT-IT was an international, randomised trial which assessed the effects of tranexamic acid (TXA) in 12 009 patients with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. The results found no evidence that TXA reduces death. It is widely accepted that results of trials should be interpreted in the context of other relevant evidence. We conducted a systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis to assess if the results of HALT-IT are compatible with evidence for TXA in other bleeding conditions.

DESIGN

Systematic review and IPD meta-analysis of randomised trials involving ≥5000 patients assessing TXA for bleeding. We searched our Antifibrinolytics Trials Register on 1 November 2022. Two authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We used a one-stage model to analyse IPD in a regression model stratified by trial. We assessed heterogeneity of the effect of TXA on death within 24 hours and vascular occlusive events (VOEs).

RESULTS

We included IPD for 64 724 patients from four trials involving patients with traumatic, obstetric and GI bleeding. Risk of bias was low. There was no evidence for heterogeneity between trials for the effect of TXA on death or for the effect of TXA on VOEs. TXA reduced the odds of death by 16% (OR=0.84, 95% CI: 0.78 to 0.91, p<0.0001; p-heterogeneity=0.40). In patients treated within 3 hours of bleeding onset, TXA reduced the odds of death by 20% (0.80, 0.73 to 0.88, p<0.0001; p-heterogeneity=0.16). TXA did not increase the odds of VOEs (0.94, 0.81 to 1.08, p for effect=0.36; p-heterogeneity=0.27).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence for statistical heterogeneity between trials assessing the effect of TXA on death or VOEs in different bleeding conditions. When the HALT-IT results are considered in the context of other evidence, a reduction in the risk of death cannot be discounted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42019128260.Cite Now.

Practical Guide to Clinical Trial Publication

This Guide to Statistics and Methods describes the process for publishing about a clinical trial by planning its clinical relevance, knowing the audience, and following reporting guidelines.

Minimum important difference is minimally important in sample size calculations

Performing a sample size calculation for a randomized controlled trial requires specifying an assumed benefit (that is, the mean improvement in outcomes due to the intervention) and a target power. There is a widespread belief that judgments about the minimum important difference should be used when setting the assumed benefit and thus the sample size. This belief is misguided - when the purpose of the trial is to test the null hypothesis of no treatment benefit, the only role that the minimum important difference should be given is in determining whether the sample size should be zero, that is, whether the trial should be conducted at all.The true power of the trial depends on the true benefit, so the calculated sample size will result in a true power close to the target power used in the calculation only if the assumed benefit is close to the true benefit. Hence, the assumed benefit should be set to a value that is considered a realistic estimate of the true benefit. If a trial designed using a realistic value for the assumed benefit is unlikely to demonstrate that a meaningful benefit exists, the trial should not be conducted. Any attempt to reconcile discrepancies between the realistic estimate of benefit and the minimum important difference when setting the assumed benefit merely conflates a valid sample size calculation with one based on faulty inputs and leads to a true power that fails to match the target power.When calculating sample size, trial designers should focus efforts on determining reasonable estimates of the true benefit, not on what magnitude of benefit is judged important.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 Extension

IMPORTANCE

Complete information in a trial protocol regarding study outcomes is crucial for obtaining regulatory approvals, ensuring standardized trial conduct, reducing research waste, and providing transparency of methods to facilitate trial replication, critical appraisal, accurate reporting and interpretation of trial results, and knowledge synthesis. However, recommendations on what outcome-specific information should be included are diverse and inconsistent. To improve reporting practices promoting transparent and reproducible outcome selection, assessment, and analysis, a need for specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be addressed in clinical trial protocols exists.

OBJECTIVE

To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for describing outcomes in clinical trial protocols through integration with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 statement.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in clinical trial protocols.

FINDINGS

The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 108 recommendations relevant to outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in trial protocols, the majority (72%) of which were not included in the SPIRIT 2013 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 56 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 19 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 9 items that elaborate on the SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the choice of primary, secondary, and other outcomes (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 12) prospectively in the trial protocol, defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups for the primary outcome used in the sample size calculations (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 14), describing the responsiveness of the study instruments used to assess the outcome and providing details on the outcome assessors (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 18a), and describing any planned methods to account for multiplicity relating to the analyses or interpretation of the results (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 20a).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement provides 9 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all trial protocols and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Reports: The CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 Extension

IMPORTANCE

Clinicians, patients, and policy makers rely on published results from clinical trials to help make evidence-informed decisions. To critically evaluate and use trial results, readers require complete and transparent information regarding what was planned, done, and found. Specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be reported in publications of clinical trials is needed to reduce deficient reporting practices that obscure issues with outcome selection, assessment, and analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for reporting outcomes in clinical trial reports through integration with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for the reporting of outcomes in clinical trial reports.

FINDINGS

The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 128 recommendations relevant to reporting outcomes in trial reports, the majority (83%) of which were not included in the CONSORT 2010 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 64 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 30 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 17 items that elaborate on the CONSORT 2010 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the trial outcomes, including how and when they were assessed (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 6a), defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups during sample size calculations (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 7a), describing the statistical methods used to compare groups for the primary and secondary outcomes (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 12a), and describing the prespecified analyses and any outcome analyses not prespecified (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 18).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement provides 17 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all published clinical trial reports and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

FUTURE-GB: functional and ultrasound-guided resection of glioblastoma - a two-stage randomised control trial

INTRODUCTION

Surgery remains the mainstay for treatment of primary glioblastoma, followed by radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Current standard of care during surgery involves the intraoperative use of image-guidance and 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA). There are multiple other surgical adjuncts available to the neuro-oncology surgeon. However, access to, and usage of these varies widely in UK practice, with limited evidence of their use. The aim of this trial is to investigate whether the addition of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and intraoperative ultrasound (iUS) to the standard of care surgery (intraoperative neuronavigation and 5-ALA) impacts on deterioration free survival (DFS).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a two-stage, randomised control trial (RCT) consisting of an initial non-randomised cohort study based on the principles of the IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term follow-up) stage-IIb format, followed by a statistically powered randomised trial comparing the addition of DTI and iUS to the standard of care surgery. A total of 357 patients will be recruited for the RCT. The primary outcome is DFS, defined as the time to either 10-point deterioration in health-related quality of life scores from baseline, without subsequent reversal, progressive disease or death.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial was registered in the Integrated Research Application System (Ref: 264482) and approved by a UK research and ethics committee (Ref: 20/LO/0840). Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Further dissemination to participants, patient groups and the wider medical community will use a range of approaches to maximise impact.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN38834571.

A protocol for applying health equity-informed implementation science models and frameworks to adapt a sleep intervention for adolescents at risk for suicidal thoughts and behaviors

Background

Effective and equitable strategies to prevent youth suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STB) are an urgent public health priority. Adolescent sleep disturbances are robustly linked to STB but are rarely addressed in preventive interventions or among Black and/or Hispanic/Latinx youth for whom STB risk is increasing disproportionately. This paper describes an application of health equity-informed implementation science models and frameworks to adapt and evaluate the evidence-based Transdiagnostic Sleep and Circadian (TSC) intervention for primary care implementation with adolescents of minoritized backgrounds with depression and STB risk.

Methods

This multiphase study protocol uses the Assessment, Decision, Adaptation, Production, Topical Experts-Integration, Training, Testing (ADAPT-ITT) model to adapt and evaluate TSC for primary care implementation with adolescents who are depressed, at risk for STB, and of primarily Black and/or Hispanic/Latinx backgrounds. We integrate the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) in an initial qualitative inquiry of adolescent, caregiver, and clinician perceptions of TSC. Subsequent ADAPT-ITT phases include systematically and iteratively testing adaptations based on the qualitative inquiry, with ongoing key informant input, and then evaluating the adapted TSC for feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy in a pilot randomized trial.

Anticipated results

Based on youth depression and sleep health disparities research, we expect that TSC adaptations will be needed to enhance intervention content for adolescents with depression, STB risk, and primarily Black and/or Hispanic/Latinx backgrounds. We also anticipate adaptations will be needed to align TSC delivery methods with primary care implementation.

Conclusions

Adapting evidence-based interventions with end-users and contexts in mind can help ensure that intervention strategies and delivery methods are acceptable to, and feasible with, health disparate populations. Although TSC has shown effectiveness for adolescents with sleep disturbances, we expect that additional multiphase research is necessary to optimize TSC for primary care delivery with Black and/or Hispanic/Latinx adolescents with depression and STB risk.

Strengthening Mental Abilities with Relational Training (SMART) in multiple sclerosis (MS): study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial

Background

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic condition of the central nervous system, affecting around 1 in every 600 people in the UK, with 130 new diagnoses every week. Cognitive difficulties are common amongst people with MS, with up to 70% experiencing deficits in higher-level brain functions—such as planning and problem-solving, attention, and memory. Cognitive deficits make it difficult for people with MS to complete everyday tasks and limit their abilities to work, socialise, and live independently. There is a clear need—and recognised research priority—for treatments that can improve cognitive functioning in people with MS. The absence of effective cognitive interventions exacerbates burdens on the services accessed by people with MS—requiring these services to manage sequelae of untreated cognitive deficits, including reduced quality of life, greater disability and dependence, and poorer adherence to disease-modifying treatments. Our planned research will fill the evidence gap through developing—and examining the feasibility of trialling—a novel online cognitive rehabilitation programme for people with MS (SMART). The SMART programme directly trains relational skills (the ability to flexibly relate concepts to one another) based on theory that these skills are critical to broader cognitive functioning.

Methods

The primary objective of this study aims to conduct a feasibility study to inform the development of a definitive trial of SMART for improving cognitive functioning in people with MS. The secondary objective is to develop the framework for a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a definitive trial, and the exploratory objective is to assess the signal of efficacy.

Discussion

As a feasibility trial, outcomes are unlikely to immediately effect changes to NHS practice. However, this is a necessary step towards developing a definitive trial—and will give us a signal of efficacy, a prerequisite for progression to a definitive trial. If found to be clinically and cost-effective, the latter trial could create a step-change in MS cognitive rehabilitation—improving service delivery and optimising support with limited additional resources.

Trial registration

Registration ID: ClnicalTrials.gov: NCT04975685—registered on July 23rd, 2021.

Protocol version: 2.0, 25 November 2021

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-022-01152-7.

Meaningful thresholds for patient-reported outcomes following interventions for anterior cruciate ligament tear or traumatic meniscus injury: a systematic review for the OPTIKNEE consensus

OBJECTIVE

We synthesised and assessed credibility (ie, trustworthiness) of thresholds that define meaningful scores for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following interventions for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear or traumatic meniscus injury.

DESIGN

Systematic review, narrative synthesis.

DATA SOURCES

We searched five databases, handsearched references of included studies and tracked citations.

ELIGIBILITY

Included studies investigated: individuals with ACL tear or meniscus injury; mean age <35 years; and PROM thresholds calculated using any method to define a minimal important change (MIC) or a meaningful post-treatment score (Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) or Treatment Failure).

RESULTS

We included 18 studies (15 ACL, 3 meniscus). Three different methods were used to calculate anchor-based MICs across 9 PROMs, PASS thresholds across 4 PROMs and treatment failure for 1 PROM. Credibility was rated 'high' for only one study-an MIC of 18 for the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Quality-of-life (KOOS-QOL) subscale (using the MID Credibility Assessment Tool). Where multiple thresholds were calculated among 'low' credibility thresholds in ACL studies, MICs converged to within a 10-point range for KOOS-Symptoms (-1.2 to 5.4) and function in daily living (activities of daily living, ADL 0.5-8.1) subscales, and the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (7.1-16.2). Other PROM thresholds differed up to 30 points. PASS thresholds converged to within a 10-point range in KOOS-ADL for ACL tears (92.3-100), and KOOS-Symptoms (73-78) and KOOS-QOL (53-57) in meniscus injuries.

CONCLUSION

Meaningful PROM thresholds were highly susceptible to study heterogeneity. While PROM thresholds can aid interpretability in research and clinical practice, they should be cautiously interpreted.

Perturbation-based trunk stabilization training in elite rowers: A pilot study

Introduction

Low back pain is a major health issue in elite rowers. High training volume, frequent flexion movements of the lower spine and rotational movement in sweep rowing contribute to increased spinal strain and neuropathological patterns. Perturbation-based trunk stabilization training (PTT) may be effective to treat neuromuscular deficits and low back pain.

Methods

All boat classes (8+, 4+/-, 2-) of the male German national sweep rowing team participated in this non-randomized parallel group study. We included 26 athletes (PTT: n = 12, control group: n = 14) in our analysis. Physical and Sports therapists conducted 16 individualized PTT sessions á 30–40 minutes in 10 weeks, while the control group kept the usual routines. We collected data before and after intervention on back pain intensity and disability, maximum isometric trunk extension and flexion, jump height and postural sway of single-leg stance.

Results

We found less disability (5.3 points, 95% CI [0.4, 10.1], g = 0.42) for PTT compared to control. Pain intensity decreased similar in both groups (-14.4 and -15.4 points), yielding an inconclusive between-group effect (95% CI [-16.3, 14.3]). Postural sway, strength and jump height tend to have no between- and within-group effects.

Conclusion

Perturbation-based trunk stabilization training is possibly effective to improve the physical function of the lower back in elite rowers.

Clinical Benefit Scales and Trial Design: Some Statistical Issues

Recently developed clinical-benefit outcome scales by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) allow standardized objective evaluation of outcomes of randomized clinical trials. However, incorporation of clinical-benefit outcome scales into trial designs highlights a number of statistical issues: the relationship between minimal clinical benefit and the target treatment-effect alternative used in the trial design, designing trials to assess long-term benefit, potential problems with using a trial endpoint that is not overall survival, and how to incorporate subgroup analyses into the trial design. Using the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale as a basis for discussion, we review what these issues are and how they can guide the choice of trial-design target effects, appropriate endpoints, and pre-specified subgroup analyses to increase the chances that the resulting trial outcomes can be appropriately evaluated for clinical benefit.

Effectiveness of video consultations in type 1 diabetes patients treated with insulin pumps in the outpatient clinic: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the study is to assess the effectiveness of video consultations in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) treated with insulin pumps in the outpatient clinic.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A 52 weeks' duration, open-label, randomised controlled trial will be conducted, enrolling 100 patients with type 1 DM currently treated with insulin pump.Patients will be recruited from the diabetes outpatient clinic at Hospital of Southern Jutland, Department of internal medicine, Sønderborg. Participants will be randomised to either video consultations (experimental intervention) or standard care (control comparator). Participants in the video consultation group will follow their standard care treatment but will have all of their scheduled and non-scheduled appointments by video consultation. The control group will follow their standard care treatment as usual, having all their appointments at the outpatient centre. Primary outcome will be change from baseline of time in range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the Regional Committe on Health Research Ethics for Southern Denmark, S-20200039G Acadre 20/12922. We will present the results of the trial at international conferences as well as publish the results of the trial in (a) peer-reviewed scientific journal(s).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04612933.

Performance of the SarQoL quality of life tool in a UK population of older people with probable sarcopenia and implications for use in clinical trials: findings from the SarcNet registry

Background

The Sarcopenia Quality of Life (SarQoL) questionnaire is a disease-specific sarcopenia quality of life tool. We aimed to independently assess SarQoL with a particular focus on its suitability as a clinical trial outcome measure.

Methods

We analysed data from the UK Sarcopenia Network and Registry. Measures of physical performance and lean mass were collected at baseline. SarQoL and the Strength, Assistance, Rise, Climb - Falls (SARC-F) questionnaire (to assess functional ability) were collected at both baseline and six-month follow-up. Global changes in fitness and quality of life at 6 months were elicited on seven-point Likert scales. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Responsiveness (Cohen’s d and Guyatt coefficients) and minimum clinically important differences were calculated for participants reporting slight improvement or worsening in their global scores. Concurrent validity was assessed by correlating baseline SarQoL scores with measures of physical performance and functional ability.

Results

We analysed data from 147 participants, 125 of whom underwent follow up assessment; mean age 78 years; 72 (49%) were women. Internal consistency was good; Cronbach’s alpha was 0.944 at baseline and 0.732 at telephone follow-up. Correlation between baseline and follow-up SarQoL was weak (r = 0.27; p = 0.03). The minimum clinically important improvement ranged from 5 to 21 points giving trial sample size estimates of 25–100 participants. SarQoL scores were moderately correlated with handgrip (r = 0.37; p < 0.001), SARC-F (r = − 0.45; p < 0.001), short physical performance battery (r = 0.48; p < 0.001) and 4-m walk speed (r = 0.48; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

SarQoL has acceptable performance in older UK participants with probable sarcopenia and is sufficiently responsive for use in clinical trials for sarcopenia.

Remote, real-time expert elicitation to determine the prior probability distribution for Bayesian sample size determination in international randomised controlled trials: Bronchiolitis in Infants Placebo Versus Epinephrine and Dexamethasone (BIPED) study

Background

Bayesian methods are increasing in popularity in clinical research. The design of Bayesian clinical trials requires a prior distribution, which can be elicited from experts. In diseases with international differences in management, the elicitation exercise should recruit internationally, making a face-to-face elicitation session expensive and more logistically challenging. Thus, we used a remote, real-time elicitation exercise to construct prior distributions. These elicited distributions were then used to determine the sample size of the Bronchiolitis in Infants with Placebo Versus Epinephrine and Dexamethasone (BIPED) study, an international randomised controlled trial in the Pediatric Emergency Research Network (PERN). The BIPED study aims to determine whether the combination of epinephrine and dexamethasone, compared to placebo, is effective in reducing hospital admission for infants presenting with bronchiolitis to the emergency department.

Methods

We developed a Web-based tool to support the elicitation of the probability of hospitalisation for infants with bronchiolitis. Experts participated in online workshops to specify their individual prior distributions, which were aggregated using the equal-weighted linear pooling method. Experts were then invited to provide their comments on the aggregated distribution. The average length criterion determined the BIPED sample size.

Results

Fifteen paediatric emergency medicine clinicians from Canada, the USA, Australia and New Zealand participated in three workshops to provide their elicited prior distributions. The mean elicited probability of admission for infants with bronchiolitis was slightly lower for those receiving epinephrine and dexamethasone compared to supportive care in the aggregate distribution. There were substantial differences in the individual beliefs but limited differences between North America and Australasia. From this aggregate distribution, a sample size of 410 patients per arm results in an average 95% credible interval length of less than 9% and a relative predictive power of 90%.

Conclusion

Remote, real-time expert elicitation is a feasible, useful and practical tool to determine a prior distribution for international randomised controlled trials. Bayesian methods can then determine the trial sample size using these elicited prior distributions. The ease and low cost of remote expert elicitation mean that this approach is suitable for future international randomised controlled trials.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT03567473

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06240-w.

What Is the Numerical Nature of Pain Relief?

Pain relief, or a decrease in self-reported pain intensity, is frequently the primary outcome of pain clinical trials. Investigators commonly report pain relief in one of two ways: using raw units (additive) or using percentage units (multiplicative). However, additive and multiplicative scales have different assumptions and are incompatible with one another. In this work, we describe the assumptions and corollaries of additive and multiplicative models of pain relief to illuminate the issue from statistical and clinical perspectives. First, we explain the math underlying each model and illustrate these points using simulations, for which readers are assumed to have an understanding of linear regression. Next, we connect this math to clinical interpretations, stressing the importance of statistical models that accurately represent the underlying data; for example, how using percent pain relief can mislead clinicians if the data are actually additive. These theoretical discussions are supported by empirical data from four longitudinal studies of patients with subacute and chronic pain. Finally, we discuss self-reported pain intensity as a measurement construct, including its philosophical limitations and how clinical pain differs from acute pain measured during psychophysics experiments. This work has broad implications for clinical pain research, ranging from statistical modeling of trial data to the use of minimal clinically important differences and patient-clinician communication.

Writing up your clinical trial report for a scientific journal: the REPORT trial guide for effective and transparent research reporting without spin

The REPORT guide is a ‘How to’ guide to help you report your clinical research in an effective and transparent way. It is intended to supplement established first choice reporting tools, such as Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), by adding tacit knowledge (ie, learnt, informal or implicit knowledge) about reporting topics that we have struggled with as authors or see others struggle with as journal reviewers or editors. We focus on the randomised controlled trial, but the guide also applies to other study designs. Topics included in the REPORT guide cover reporting checklists, trial report structure, choice of title, writing style, trial registry and reporting consistency, spin or reporting bias, transparent data presentation (figures), open access considerations, data sharing and more. Preprint (open access): https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/qsxdz.

The Challenge of Designing Stroke Trials That Change Practice: MCID vs. Sample Size and Pragmatism

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are the basis for evidence-based acute stroke care. For an RCT to change practice, its results have to be statistically significant and clinically meaningful. While methods to assess statistical significance are standardized and widely agreed upon, there is no clear consensus on how to assess clinical significance. Researchers often refer to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) when describing the smallest change in outcomes that is considered meaningful to patients and leads to a change in patient management. It is widely accepted that a treatment should only be adopted when its effect on outcome is equal to or larger than the MCID. There are however situations in which it is reasonable to decide against adopting a treatment, even when its beneficial effect matches or exceeds the MCID, for example when it is resource- intensive and associated with high costs. Furthermore, while the MCID represents an important concept in this regard, defining it for an individual trial is difficult as it is highly context specific. In the following, we use hypothetical stroke trial examples to review the challenges related to MCID, sample size and pragmatic considerations that researchers face in acute stroke trials, and propose a framework for designing meaningful stroke trials that have the potential to change clinical practice.

Myths and Methodologies: The use of equivalence and non-inferiority tests for interventional studies in exercise physiology and sport science

NEW FINDINGS

What is the topic of this review? The traditional null-hypothesis test allows making informed decisions about whether an experimental intervention is superior to a control while controlling the Type I and Type II error rates. Equivalence and non-inferiority tests allow determining whether two interventions are similar in efficacy or whether one is not unacceptably worse than the other. What advances does it highlight? Equivalence and non-inferiority designs may better fit the research questions of exercise physiologists and sport scientists when investigating new interventions that have better cost-effectiveness, are safer and easier to implement, or are less demanding than the standard.

ABSTRACT

Exercise physiology and sport science have traditionally made use of the null hypothesis of no difference to make decisions about experimental interventions. This article aims to review current statistical approaches typically used by exercise physiologists and sport scientists for the design and analysis of experimental interventions and to highlight the importance of including equivalence and non-inferiority studies, which address different research questions than deciding whether an effect is present. Firstly, we briefly describe the most common approaches, along with their rationale, to investigate the effects of different interventions. We then discuss the main steps involved in the design and analysis of equivalence and non-inferiority studies, commonly performed in other research fields, with worked examples from exercise physiology and sport science scenarios. Finally, we provide recommendations to exercise physiologists and sport scientists who would like to apply the different approaches in future research. We hope this work will promote the correct use of equivalence and non-inferiority designs in exercise physiology and sport science whenever the research context, conditions, applications, researchers' interests, or reasonable beliefs, justify these approaches. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Forks in the road: Definitions of response, remission, recovery, and other dichotomized outcomes in randomized controlled trials for adolescent depression. A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Definitions of dichotomous outcome terms, such as "response," "remission," and "recovery" are central to the design, interpretation, and clinical application of randomized controlled trials of adolescent depression interventions. Accordingly, this scoping review was conducted to document how these terms have been defined and justified in clinical trials.

METHOD

Bibliographic databases MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo, and CINAHL were searched from inception to February 2020 for randomized controlled trials evaluating treatments for adolescent depression. Ninety-eight trials were included for data extraction and analysis.

RESULTS

Assessment of outcome measurement instruments, metric strategies, methods of aggregation, and measurement timing, yielded 53 unique outcome definitions of "response" across 45 trials that assessed response, 47 unique definitions of "remission" in 29 trials that assessed remission, and 19 unique definitions of "recovery" across 11 trials that assessed recovery. A minority of trials (N = 35) provided a rationale for dichotomous outcomes definitions, often by citing other studies that used a similar definition (N = 11). No rationale included input from youth or families with lived experience.

CONCLUSION

Our review revealed that definitions of "response," "remission," "recovery," and related terms are highly variable, lack clear rationales, and are not informed by key stakeholder input. These limitations impair pooling of trial results and the incorporation of trial findings into pragmatic treatment decisions in clinical practice. Systematic approaches to establishing outcome definitions are needed to enhance the impact of trials examining adolescent depression treatment.

Patient-reported outcome measures in systemic lupus erythematosus by a web-based application: A randomized, crossover, agreement study

OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), but not widely used in clinical practice. However, interest in incorporating PROMs into the management of SLE is increasing as PROMs provide a unique insight into the patient's perception of lupus disease activity. The objective was to assess agreement in PROMs answered using a web app versus an outpatient touchscreen among patients with SLE.

METHODS

In a crossover RCT, SLE patients answered the following PROMs in a random order using the web app and the outpatient touchscreen: Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Activity Questionnaire (SLAQ) Global Health, SLAQ Symptom, SLAQ Total, SLAQ Worsening, Pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Fatigue VAS, Patient Global Health VAS, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), and an Anchoring Question. Equivalence between the two device types was demonstrated if the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of the difference in PROM scores was within the prespecified equivalence margin. Agreement between the two device types was assessed using mixed linear models.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients with SLE were included. Equivalence was demonstrated between the two device types for SLAQ Global Health with a difference of -0.21 (95% CI: -0.65 to 0.23). Moreover, equivalence was also found for HAQ-DI, Pain VAS, and Fatigue VAS whereas only comparability within the limits of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) was demonstrated for VAS Patient Global Health. Statistical comparability was demonstrated for SLAQ Total, SLAQ Worsening, PASS, and Anchoring Question (no predefined MCID/equivalence margins available). However, a statistically significant difference between device types was observed for the SLAQ Symptom of -0.56 (95% CI: -1.10 to -0.01). The difference was, however, very small when considering the scale range of 0-24; thus, it was not judged to be of clinical relevance. Preference for the web app was very high (91.2%).

CONCLUSION

For the first time ever, equivalence and comparability between two electronic device types for various PROMs were demonstrated among patients with SLE. Implementation of the device is expected to improve the management of SLE.

Power(ful) myths: misconceptions regarding sample size in quality of life research

PURPOSE

Carefully selecting the sample size for a research study is one of the most fundamental ways to utilize resources in an ethical manner, maximize impact and replicability, and minimize research waste when investigating questions relevant to health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Despite an increased focus on sample size in the methodological literature, the topic has received limited attention in the HRQOL field, and there are still misconceptions that can weaken even well-intentioned sample size planning. This article aims to highlight common misconceptions, provide accessible and non-technical corrections to these misconceptions, and show how HRQOL researchers can benefit from a more nuanced understanding of sample size planning.

METHOD

Misconceptions were identified broadly through examples within the health, psychology, and HRQOL literatures. In examining these misconceptions, study-level (e.g., missing data, multilevel designs, multiple reported outcomes) and field-level (e.g., publication bias, replicability) issues relevant to HRQOL research were considered.

RESULTS

Misconceptions include: (a) researchers should use rules of thumb or the largest sample size possible, (b) sample size planning should always focus on power, (c) planned power = actual power, (d) there is only one level of power per study, and (e) power is only relevant for the individual researcher. Throughout the article, major themes linked to these misconceptions are mapped onto recent HRQOL studies to make the connections more tangible.

CONCLUSION

By clarifying several challenges and misconceptions regarding sample size planning and statistical power, HRQOL researchers will have the tools needed to augment the research literature in effective and meaningful ways.

A review of trauma and orthopaedic randomised clinical trials published in high-impact general medical journals

Introduction

The recent past has seen a significant increase in the number of trauma and orthopaedic randomised clinical trials published in “the big five” general medical journals. The quality of this research has, however, not yet been established.

Methods

We therefore set out to critically appraise the quality of available literature over a 10-year period (April 2010–April 2020) through a systematic search of these 5 high-impact general medical journals (JAMA, NEJM, BMJ, Lancet and Annals). A standardised data extraction proforma was utilised to gather information regarding: trial design, sample size calculation, results, study quality and pragmatism. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the modified Delphi list. Study pragmatism was assessed using the PRECIS-2 tool.

Results

A total of 25 studies were eligible for inclusion. Over half of the included trials did not meet their sample size calculation for the primary outcome, with a similar proportion of these studies at risk of type II error for their non-significant results. There was a high degree of pragmatism according to PRECIS-2. Non-significant studies had greater pragmatism that those with statistically significant results (p < 0.001). Only 56% studies provided adequate justification for the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in the population assessed. Overall, very few studies were deemed high quality/low risk of bias.

Conclusions

These findings highlight that there are some important methodological concerns present within the current evidence base of RCTs published in high-impact medical journals. Potential strategies that may improve future trial design are highlighted.

Level of evidence

Level 1.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00590-021-03137-3.

Protocol for a prospective multisite cohort study investigating hysterectomy versus uterine preservation for pelvic organ prolapse surgery: the HUPPS study

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is the descent of pelvic organs into the vagina resulting in bulge symptoms and occurs in approximately 50% of women. Almost 20% of women will elect surgical correction of this condition by age 85. Removal of the uterus (hysterectomy) with concomitant vaginal vault suspension is a long-standing practice in POP surgery to address apical (uterine) prolapse. Yet, contemporary evidence on the merits of this approach relative to preservation of the uterus through suspension is needed to better inform surgical decision making by patients and their healthcare providers. The objective of this study is to evaluate POP-specific health outcomes and service utilisation of women electing uterine suspension compared with those electing hysterectomy and vaginal vault suspension for POP surgery up to 1-year postsurgery.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a prospective cohort study planning to enrol 321 adult women with stage ≥2 POP from multiple sites in Alberta, Canada. Following standardised counselling from study surgeons, participants self-select either a hysterectomy based or uterine preservation surgical group. Data are being collected through participant questionnaires, medical records and administrative data linkage at four time points spanning from the presurgical consultation to 1-year postsurgery. The primary outcome is anatomic failure to correct POP, and secondary outcomes include changes in positioning of pelvic structures, retreatment, subjective report of bulge symptoms, pelvic floor distress and impact, sexual function and health service use. Data will be analysed using inverse probability weighting of propensity scores and generalised linear models.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is approved by the Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board at the University of Calgary (REB19-2134). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, presentations at national and international conferences, and educational handouts for patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04890951.

Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update

BACKGROUND

The Medical Research Council published the second edition of its framework in 2006 on developing and evaluating complex interventions. Since then, there have been considerable developments in the field of complex intervention research. The objective of this project was to update the framework in the light of these developments. The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design, and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods.

METHODS

There were four stages to the update: (1) gap analysis to identify developments in the methods and practice since the previous framework was published; (2) an expert workshop of 36 participants to discuss the topics identified in the gap analysis; (3) an open consultation process to seek comments on a first draft of the new framework; and (4) findings from the previous stages were used to redraft the framework, and final expert review was obtained. The process was overseen by a Scientific Advisory Group representing the range of relevant National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council research investments.

RESULTS

Key changes to the previous framework include (1) an updated definition of complex interventions, highlighting the dynamic relationship between the intervention and its context; (2) an emphasis on the use of diverse research perspectives: efficacy, effectiveness, theory-based and systems perspectives; (3) a focus on the usefulness of evidence as the basis for determining research perspective and questions; (4) an increased focus on interventions developed outside research teams, for example changes in policy or health services delivery; and (5) the identification of six 'core elements' that should guide all phases of complex intervention research: consider context; develop, refine and test programme theory; engage stakeholders; identify key uncertainties; refine the intervention; and economic considerations. We divide the research process into four phases: development, feasibility, evaluation and implementation. For each phase we provide a concise summary of recent developments, key points to address and signposts to further reading. We also present case studies to illustrate the points being made throughout.

LIMITATIONS

The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods. In many of the areas of innovation that we highlight, such as the use of systems approaches, there are still only a few practical examples. We refer to more specific and detailed guidance where available and note where promising approaches require further development.

CONCLUSIONS

This new framework incorporates developments in complex intervention research published since the previous edition was written in 2006. As well as taking account of established practice and recent refinements, we draw attention to new approaches and place greater emphasis on economic considerations in complex intervention research. We have introduced a new emphasis on the importance of context and the value of understanding interventions as 'events in systems' that produce effects through interactions with features of the contexts in which they are implemented. The framework adopts a pluralist approach, encouraging researchers and research funders to adopt diverse research perspectives and to select research questions and methods pragmatically, with the aim of providing evidence that is useful to decision-makers.

FUTURE WORK

We call for further work to develop relevant methods and provide examples in practice. The use of this framework should be monitored and the move should be made to a more fluid resource in the future, for example a web-based format that can be frequently updated to incorporate new material and links to emerging resources.

FUNDING

This project was jointly funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Institute for Health Research (Department of Health and Social Care 73514).

A CHecklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (the CHAMP statement): explanation and elaboration

Misuse of statistics in medical and sports science research is common and may lead to detrimental consequences to healthcare. Many authors, editors and peer reviewers of medical papers will not have expert knowledge of statistics or may be unconvinced about the importance of applying correct statistics in medical research. Although there are guidelines on reporting statistics in medical papers, a checklist on the more general and commonly seen aspects of statistics to assess when peer-reviewing an article is needed. In this article, we propose a CHecklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (CHAMP) comprising 30 items related to the design and conduct, data analysis, reporting and presentation, and interpretation of a research paper. While CHAMP is primarily aimed at editors and peer reviewers during the statistical assessment of a medical paper, we believe it will serve as a useful reference to improve authors' and readers' practice in their use of statistics in medical research. We strongly encourage editors and peer reviewers to consult CHAMP when assessing manuscripts for potential publication. Authors also may apply CHAMP to ensure the validity of their statistical approach and reporting of medical research, and readers may consider using CHAMP to enhance their statistical assessment of a paper.

Artificial intelligence extension of the OSCAR-IB criteria

Artificial intelligence (AI)-based diagnostic algorithms have achieved ambitious aims through automated image pattern recognition. For neurological disorders, this includes neurodegeneration and inflammation. Scalable imaging technology for big data in neurology is optical coherence tomography (OCT). We highlight that OCT changes observed in the retina, as a window to the brain, are small, requiring rigorous quality control pipelines. There are existing tools for this purpose. Firstly, there are human-led validated consensus quality control criteria (OSCAR-IB) for OCT. Secondly, these criteria are embedded into OCT reporting guidelines (APOSTEL). The use of the described annotation of failed OCT scans advances machine learning. This is illustrated through the present review of the advantages and disadvantages of AI-based applications to OCT data. The neurological conditions reviewed here for the use of big data include Alzheimer disease, stroke, multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson disease, and epilepsy. It is noted that while big data is relevant for AI, ownership is complex. For this reason, we also reached out to involve representatives from patient organizations and the public domain in addition to clinical and research centers. The evidence reviewed can be grouped in a five-point expansion of the OSCAR-IB criteria to embrace AI (OSCAR-AI). The review concludes by specific recommendations on how this can be achieved practically and in compliance with existing guidelines.

Using Mendelian Randomization to Improve the Design of Randomized Trials

Randomized controlled trials and Mendelian randomization studies are two study designs that provide randomized evidence in human biological and medical research. Both exploit the power of randomization to provide unconfounded estimates of causal effect. However, randomized trials and Mendelian randomization studies have very different study designs and scientific objectives. As a result, despite sometimes being referred to as "nature's randomized trial," a Mendelian randomization study cannot be used to replace a randomized trial but instead provides complementary information. In this review, we explain the similarities and differences between randomized trials and Mendelian randomization studies, and suggest several ways that Mendelian randomization can be used to directly inform and improve the design of randomized trials illustrated with practical examples. We conclude by describing how Mendelian randomization studies can employ the principles of trial design to be framed as "naturally randomized trials" that can provide a template for the design of future randomized trials evaluating therapies directed against genetically validated targets.

Social Network Research contribution to evaluating process in a feasibility study of a peer-led and school-based sexual health intervention

There is growing interest in social network-based programmes to improve health, but rigorous methods using Social Network research to evaluate the process of these interventions is less well developed. Using data from the "STis And Sexual Health" (STASH) feasibility trial of a school-based, peer-led intervention on sexual health prevention, we illustrate how network data analysis results can address key components of process evaluations for complex interventions-implementation, mechanisms of impacts, and context. STASH trained students as Peer Supporters (PS) to diffuse sexual health messages though face-to-face interactions and online Facebook (FB) groups. We applied a Multilevel Exponential Random Graph modelling approach to analyse the interdependence between offline friendship relationships and online FB ties and how these different relationships align. Our results suggest that the creation of online FB communities mirrored offline adolescent groups, demonstrating fidelity of intervention delivery. Data on informal friendship networks related to student's individual characteristics (i.e., demographics, sexual health knowledge and adherence to norms, which were included for STASH), contributed to an understanding of the social relational 'building' mechanisms that sustain tie-formation. This knowledge could assist the selection of opinion leaders, improving identification of influential peers situated in optimal network positions. This work provides a novel contribution to understanding how to integrate network research with the process evaluation of a network intervention.