Trial Forge Guidance 4: a guideline for reporting the results of randomised Studies Within A Trial (SWATs)

BACKGROUND

Evidence to support decisions on trial processes is minimal. One way to generate this evidence is to use a Study Within A Trial (SWAT) to test trial processes or explore methodological uncertainties. SWAT evidence relies on replication to ensure sufficient power and broad applicability of findings. Prompt reporting is therefore essential; however, SWAT publications are often the first to be abandoned in the face of other time pressures. Reporting guidance for embedded methodology trials does exist but is not widely used. We sought therefore to build on these guidelines to develop a straightforward, concise reporting standard, which remains adherent to the CONSORT guideline.

METHODS

An iterative process was used to develop the guideline. This included initial meetings with key stakeholders, development of an initial guideline, pilot testing of draft guidelines, further iteration and pilot testing, and finalisation of the guideline.

RESULTS

We developed a reporting guideline applicable to randomised SWATs, including replications of previous evaluations. The guideline follows the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and provides example text to ensure ease and clarity of reporting across all domains.

CONCLUSIONS

The SWAT reporting guideline will aid authors, reviewers, and journal editors to produce and review clear, structured reports of randomised SWATs, whilst also adhering to the CONSORT guideline.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EQUATOR Network - Guidelines Under Development ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-clinical-trials/#SWAT ). Registered on 25 March 2021.

The lived experience of severe mental illness and long-term conditions: a qualitative exploration of service user, carer, and healthcare professional perspectives on self-managing co-existing mental and physical conditions

BACKGROUND

People with severe mental illness (SMI), such as schizophrenia, have higher rates of physical long-term conditions (LTCs), poorer health outcomes, and shorter life expectancy compared with the general population. Previous research exploring SMI and diabetes highlights that people with SMI experience barriers to self-management, a key component of care in long-term conditions; however, this has not been investigated in the context of other LTCs. The aim of this study was to explore the lived experience of co-existing SMI and LTCs for service users, carers, and healthcare professionals.

METHODS

A qualitative study with people with SMI and LTCs, their carers, and healthcare professionals, using semi-structured interviews, focused observations, and focus groups across the UK. Forty-one interviews and five focus groups were conducted between December 2018 and April 2019. Transcripts were coded by two authors and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Three themes were identified, 1) the precarious nature of living with SMI, 2) the circularity of life with SMI and LTCs, and 3) the constellation of support for self-management. People with co-existing SMI and LTCs often experience substantial difficulties with self-management of their health due to the competing demands of their psychiatric symptoms and treatment, social circumstances, and access to support. Multiple long-term conditions add to the burden of self-management. Social support, alongside person-centred professional care, is a key facilitator for managing health. An integrated approach to both mental and physical healthcare was suggested to meet service user and carer needs.

CONCLUSION

The demands of living with SMI present a substantial barrier to self-management for multiple co-existing LTCs. It is important that people with SMI can access person-centred, tailored support for their LTCs that takes into consideration individual circumstances and priorities.

Dietary protein and bone health across the life-course: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis over 40 years

We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of published papers assessing dietary protein and bone health. We found little benefit of increasing protein intake for bone health in healthy adults but no indication of any detrimental effect, at least within the protein intakes of the populations studied. This systematic review and meta-analysis analysed the relationship between dietary protein and bone health across the life-course. The PubMed database was searched for all relevant human studies from the 1st January 1976 to 22nd January 2016, including all bone outcomes except calcium metabolism. The searches identified 127 papers for inclusion, including 74 correlational studies, 23 fracture or osteoporosis risk studies and 30 supplementation trials. Protein intake accounted for 0-4% of areal BMC and areal BMD variance in adults and 0-14% of areal BMC variance in children and adolescents. However, when confounder adjusted (5 studies) adult lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD associations were not statistically significant. There was no association between protein intake and relative risk (RR) of osteoporotic fractures for total (RR_(random) = 0.94; 0.72 to 1.23, I² = 32%), animal (RR _(random) = 0.98; 0.76 to 1.27, I² = 46%) or vegetable protein (RR _(fixed) = 0.97 (0.89 to 1.09, I² = 15%). In total protein supplementation studies, pooled effect sizes were not statistically significant for LSBMD (total n = 255, MD_(fixed) = 0.04 g/cm² (0.00 to 0.08, P = 0.07), I² = 0%) or FNBMD (total n = 435, MD_(random) = 0.01 g/cm² (-0.03 to 0.05, P = 0.59), I² = 68%). There appears to be little benefit of increasing protein intake for bone health in healthy adults but there is also clearly no indication of any detrimental effect, at least within the protein intakes of the populations studied (around 0.8-1.3 g/Kg/day). More studies are urgently required on the association between protein intake and bone health in children and adolescents.

Bilateral or unilateral cochlear implantation for deaf children: an observational study

OBJECTIVE

Cochlear implantation in one ear (unilateral implantation) has been the standard treatment for severe-profound childhood deafness. We assessed whether cochlear implantation in both ears (bilateral implantation) is associated with better listening skills, higher health-related quality of life (health utility) and higher general quality of life (QOL) than unilateral implantation.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional observational study.

SETTING

University of York.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty severely-profoundly deaf and 56 normally-hearing children recruited via a charity, the UK National Health Service and schools.

INTERVENTIONS

Thirty of the deaf children had received bilateral cochlear implants; 20 had unilateral cochlear implants.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Performance measures of children's listening skills; parental-proxy valuations of the deaf children's health utility obtained with the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 and of their QOL obtained with a visual analogue scale.

RESULTS

On average, bilaterally-implanted children performed significantly better than unilaterally implanted children on tests of sound localisation and speech perception in noise. After conservative imputation of missing data and while controlling for confounds, bilateral implantation was associated with increases of 18.5% in accuracy of sound localisation (95% CI 5.9 to 31.1) and of 3.7 dB in speech perception in noise (95% CI 0.9 to 6.5). Bilaterally-implanted children did not perform as well as normally-hearing children, on average. Bilaterally- and unilaterally-implanted children did not differ significantly in parental ratings of health utility (difference in medians 0.05, p>0.05) or QOL (difference in medians 0.01, p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with unilateral cochlear implantation, bilateral implantation is associated with better listening skills in severely-profoundly deaf children.