Search

Background: Interest in and use of electronic consent (e-consent) in the conduct of academic clinical trials has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic. E-consent offers advantages including increased efficiency and accessibility, and reduced burden on site staff, which can be appealing to academic trialists anticipating challenges in recruitment to complex trial designs or with limited funding. However, there are many options to consider when using e-consent in a study protocol. This paper presents five case studies from Norwich Clinical Trials Unit, demonstrating how e-consent models can be effectively tailored to the needs of different trials. These examples illustrate the options around and benefits of e-consent, the acceptability of e-consent by participants, and the design considerations that were made during the development of the trial protocols. Case studies: Five randomised trials are presented, selected from a range of different trial designs, disease areas, interventions, and patient populations. E-consent was either offered as an alternative to paper consent, according to participant preference, or as the sole method of consent. E-consent was generally used to facilitate remote consent in decentralised trials but was also chosen to increase efficiency and reduce burden in an emergency department setting. The technical implementation of e-consent and detailed participant procedures were tailored to the needs of the trial settings and patient populations. For example, accompanying participant information sheets were provided in paper or electronic form, and electronic signatures could be typed or drawn. Administrative data on uptake of e-consent is presented where available. Conclusion: This paper demonstrates that the operational and technical aspects of implementing e-consent in clinical trials can be influenced by the trial design, the needs and characteristics of the trial population, financial/efficiency considerations, and level of risk. E-consent is not a one-size-fits-all tool for trials, and its use should be carefully considered during the development of the trial protocol, in conjunction with patient and public involvement contributors, site staff and other trial stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Existing therapeutic interventions to treat diabetes are well known, yet the majority of people with diabetes do not consistently achieve blood glucose targets (even individual therapy targets) for optimal health, despite the large range of treatment options available. Such outcomes have remained stubbornly poor for decades with

Abstract Background Monitoring and managing data returns in multi-centre randomised controlled trials is an important aspect of trial management. Maintaining consistently high data return rates has various benefits for trials, including enhancing oversight, improving reliability of central monitoring techniques and helping prepare for database lock and trial analyses. Despite this, there is little evidence to support best practice, and current standard methods may not be optimal. Methods We report novel methods from the Trial of Imaging and Schedule in Seminoma Testis (TRISST), a UK-based, multi-centre, phase III trial using paper Case Report Forms to collect data over a 6-year follow-up period for 669 patients. Using an automated database report which summarises the data return rate overall and per centre, we developed a Microsoft Excel-based tool to allow observation of per-centre trends in data return rate over time. The tool allowed us to distinguish between forms that can and cannot be completed retrospectively, to inform understanding of issues at individual centres. We reviewed these statistics at regular trials unit team meetings. We notified centres whose data return rate appeared to be falling, even if they had not yet crossed the pre-defined acceptability threshold of an 80% data return rate. We developed a set method for agreeing targets for gradual improvement with centres having persistent data return problems. We formalised a detailed escalation policy to manage centres who failed to meet agreed targets. We conducted a post-hoc, descriptive analysis of the effectiveness of the new processes. Results The new processes were used from April 2015 to September 2016. By May 2016, data return rates were higher than they had been at any time previously, and there were no centres with return rates below 80%, which had never been the case before. In total, 10 centres out of 35 were contacted regarding falling data return rates. Six out of these 10 showed improved rates within 6–8 weeks, and the remainder within 4 months. Conclusions Our results constitute preliminary effectiveness evidence for novel methods in monitoring and managing data return rates in randomised controlled trials. We encourage other researchers to work on generating better evidence-based methods in this area, whether through more robust evaluation of our methods or of others.

Abstract Background Participant recruitment and retention are long-standing problems in clinical trials. Although there are a large number of factors impacting on recruitment and retention, some of the problems may reflect the fact that trial design and delivery is not sufficiently ‘patient-centred’ (i.e., sensitive to patient needs and preferences). Most trials collect process and outcome measures, but it is unclear whether patient experience of trial participation itself is routinely measured. We conducted a structured scoping review of studies reporting standardised assessment of patient experience of participation in a trial. Methods A structured search of Medline, PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and hand searching of included studies were conducted in 2016. Additional sources included policy documents, relevant websites and experts. We extracted data on trial context (type, date and location) and measure type (number of items and mode of administration), patient experience domains measured, and the results reported. We conducted a narrative synthesis. Results We identified 22 journal articles reporting on 21 different structured measures of participant experience in trials. None of the studies used a formal definition of patient experience. Overall, patients reported relatively high levels of global satisfaction with the trial process as well as positive outcomes (such as the likelihood of future participation or recommendation of the trial to others). Conclusions Current published evidence is sparse. Standardised assessment of patient experience of trial participation may provide opportunities for researchers to enhance trial design and delivery. This could complement other methods of enhancing the patient-centredness of trials and might improve recruitment, retention, and long-term patient engagement with trials.

Abstract Background Neurological injuries remain the leading cause of death in comatose patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Adequate blood pressure is of paramount importance to optimize cerebral perfusion and to minimize secondary brain injury. Markers measuring global cerebral ischemia caused by cardiac arrest and consecutive resuscitation and reflecting the metabolic variations after successful resuscitation are needed to assist a more individualized post-resuscitation care. Currently, no technique is available for bedside evaluation of global cerebral energy state, and until now blood pressure targets have been based on limited clinical evidence. Recent experimental and clinical studies indicate that it might be possible to evaluate cerebral oxidative metabolism from measuring the lactate-to-pyruvate (LP) ratio of the draining venous blood. In this study, jugular bulb microdialysis and immediate bedside biochemical analysis are introduced as new diagnostic tools to evaluate the effect of higher mean arterial blood pressure on global cerebral metabolism and the degree of cellular damage after OHCA. Methods/design This is a single-center, randomized, double-blinded, superiority trial. Sixty unconscious patients with sustained return of spontaneous circulation after OHCA will be randomly assigned in a one-to-one fashion to low (63 mm Hg) or high (77 mm Hg) mean arterial blood pressure target. The primary end-point will be a difference in mean LP ratio within 48 h between blood pressure groups. Secondary end-points are (1) association between LP ratio and all-cause intensive care unit (ICU) mortality and (2) association between LP ratio and survival to hospital discharge with poor neurological function. Discussion Markers measuring cerebral ischemia caused by cardiac arrest and consecutive resuscitation and reflecting the metabolic changes after successful resuscitation are urgently needed to enable a more personalized post-resuscitation care and prognostication. Jugular bulb microdialysis may provide a reliable global estimate of cerebral metabolic state and can be implemented as an entirely new and less invasive diagnostic tool for ICU patients after OHCA and has implications for early prognosis and treatment. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03095742). Registered March 30, 2017.

Abstract Background Compulsory submission of a checklist from the relevant reporting guideline is one of the most widespread journal requirements aiming to improve completeness of reporting. However, the current suboptimal levels of adherence to reporting guidelines observed in the literature may indicate that this journal policy is not having a significant effect. Findings We explored whether authors provided the appropriate CONSORT checklist extension for their study and whether there were inconsistencies between what authors claimed on the submitted checklist and what was actually reported in the published paper. We randomly selected 12 randomized trials from three journals that provide the originally submitted checklist and analyzed six core CONSORT items. Only one paper used the appropriate checklist extension and had no inconsistencies between what was claimed in the submitted checklist and what was reported in the published paper. Conclusion Journals should take further actions to take full advantage of the requirement for the submission of fulfilled CONSORT checklists, thus ensuring that these checklists reflect what is reported in the manuscript.

Background: Overall survival is the "gold standard" endpoint in cancer clinical trials. It plays a key role in determining the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a new intervention and whether it is recommended for use in standard of care. The assessment of overall survival usually requires trial participants to be followed up for a long period of time. In this time, they may stop receiving the trial intervention and receive subsequent anti-cancer treatments, which also aim to extend survival, during trial follow-up. This can potentially change the interpretation of overall survival in the context of the clinical trial. This review aimed to determine how overall survival has been assessed in cancer clinical trials and whether subsequent anti-cancer treatments are considered. Methods: Two searches were conducted using MEDLINE within OVID© on the 9th of November 2021. The first sought to identify papers publishing overall survival results from randomised controlled trials in eight reputable journals and the second to identify papers mentioning or considering subsequent treatments. Papers published since 2010 were included if presenting or discussing overall survival in the context of treating cancer. Results: One hundred and thirty-four papers were included. The majority of these were presenting clinical trial results (98, 73%). Of these, 45 (46%) reported overall survival as a (co-) primary endpoint. A lower proportion of papers including overall survival as a (co-) primary endpoint compared to a secondary endpoint were published in recent years. The primary analysis of overall survival varied across the papers. Fifty-nine (60%) mentioned subsequent treatments. Seven papers performed additional analysis, primarily when patients in the control arm received the experimental treatment during trial follow-up (treatment switching). Discussion: Overall survival has steadily moved from being the primary to a secondary endpoint. However, it is still of interest with papers presenting overall survival results with the caveat of subsequent treatments, but little or no investigation into their effect. This review shows that there is a methodological gap for what researchers should do when trial participants receive anti-cancer treatment during trial follow-up. Future research will identify the stakeholder opinions, on how this methodological gap should be addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Compulsory submission of a checklist from the relevant reporting guideline is one of the most widespread journal requirements aiming to improve completeness of reporting. However, the current suboptimal levels of adherence to reporting guidelines observed in the literature may indicate that this journal policy is not having a significant effect., Findings: We explored whether authors provided the appropriate CONSORT checklist extension for their study and whether there were inconsistencies between what authors claimed on the submitted checklist and what was actually reported in the published paper. We randomly selected 12 randomized trials from three journals that provide the originally submitted checklist and analyzed six core CONSORT items. Only one paper used the appropriate checklist extension and had no inconsistencies between what was claimed in the submitted checklist and what was reported in the published paper., Conclusion: Journals should take further actions to take full advantage of the requirement for the submission of fulfilled CONSORT checklists, thus ensuring that these checklists reflect what is reported in the manuscript.

Background: The advantages of patient-held portable health files (PHF) and personal health records (PHR), paper or electronic, are said to include improved health-care provider continuity-of-care and patient empowerment in maintaining health. Top-down approaches are favored by public sector government and health managers. Bottom-up approaches include systems developed directly by health-care providers, consumers and industry, implemented locally on devices carried by patient-consumers or shared via web-based portals. These allow individuals to access, manage and share their health information, and that of others for whom they are authorized, in a private, secure and confidential environment. Few medical record technologies have been evaluated in randomized trials to determine whether there are important clinical benefits of these interventions. The COMMUNICATE trial will assess the acceptability and long-term clinical outcomes of an electronic and paper patient-held PHF. Methods/Design: This is a 48-month, open-label pragmatic, superiority, parallel-group design randomized controlled trial. Subjects (n=792) will be randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to each of the trial arms: the electronic PHF added to usual care, the paper PHF added to usual care and usual care alone (no PHF). Inclusion criteria include those 60 years or older living independently in the community, but who have two or more chronic medical conditions that require prescription medication and regular care by at least three medical practitioners (general and specialist care). The primary objective is whether use of a PHF compared to usual care reduces a combined endpoint of deaths, overnight hospitalizations and blindly adjudicated serious out-of-hospital events. All primary analyses will be undertaken masked to randomized arm allocation using intention-to-treat principles. Secondary outcomes include quality of life and health literacy improvements. Discussion: Lack of blinding creates potential for bias in trial conduct and ascertainment of clinical outcomes. Mechanisms are provided to reduce bias, including balanced study contact with all participants, a blinded adjudication committee determining which out-of-hospital events are serious and endpoints that are objective (overnight hospitalizations and mortality). The PRECIS tool provides a summary of the trial's design on the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum. Trial registration: Registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (identifier: NCT01082978) on 8 March 2010. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/aims: The value of using qualitative methods within clinical trials is widely recognised. How qualitative research is integrated within trials units to achieve this is less clear. This paper describes the process through which qualitative research has been integrated within Cardiff University's Centre for Trials Research (CTR) in Wales, UK. We highlight facilitators of, and challenges to, integration. Methods: We held group discussions on the work of the Qualitative Research Group (QRG) within CTR. The content of these discussions, materials for a presentation in CTR, and documents relating to the development of the QRG were interpreted at a workshop attended by group members. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used to structure analysis. A writing group prepared a document for input from members of CTR, forming the basis of this paper. Results: Actions to integrate qualitative research comprised: its inclusion in Centre strategies; formation of a QRG with dedicated funding/roles; embedding of qualitative research within operating systems; capacity building/training; monitoring opportunities to include qualitative methods in studies; maximising the quality of qualitative research and developing methodological innovation. Facilitators of these actions included: the influence of the broader methodological landscape within trial/study design and its promotion of the value of qualitative research; and close physical proximity of CTR qualitative staff/students allowing sharing of methodological approaches. Introduction of innovative qualitative methods generated interest among other staff groups. Challenges included: pressure to under-resource qualitative components of research, preference for a statistical stance historically in some research areas and funding structures, and difficulties faced by qualitative researchers carving out individual academic profiles when working across trials/studies. Conclusions: Given that CTUs are pivotal to the design and conduct of RCTs and related study types across multiple disciplines, integrating qualitative research into trials units is crucial if its contribution is to be fully realised. We have made explicit one trials unit's experience of embedding qualitative research and present this to open dialogue on ways to operationalise and optimise qualitative research in trials. NPT provides a valuable framework with which to theorise these processes, including the importance of sense-making and legitimisation when introducing new practices within organisations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The field of digital mental health has followed an exponential growth trajectory in recent years. While the evidence base has increased significantly, its adoption within health and care services has been slowed by several challenges, including a lack of knowledge from researchers regarding how to navigate the pathway for mandatory regulatory approval. This paper details the steps that a team must take to achieve the required approvals to carry out a research study using a novel digital mental health intervention. We used a randomised controlled trial of a digital mental health intervention called STOP (Successful Treatment of Paranoia) as a worked example. Methods: The methods section explains the two main objectives that are required to achieve regulatory approval (MHRA Notification of No Objection) and the detailed steps involved within each, as carried out for the STOP trial. First, the existing safety of digital mental health interventions must be demonstrated. This can refer to literature reviews, any feasibility/pilot safety data, and requires a risk management plan. Second, a detailed plan to further evaluate the safety of the digital mental health intervention is needed. As part of this we describe the STOP study's development of a framework for categorising adverse events and based on this framework, a tool to collect adverse event data. Results: We present literature review results, safety-related feasibility study findings and the full risk management plan for STOP, which addressed 26 possible hazards, and included the 6-point scales developed to quantify the probability and severity of typical risks involved when a psychiatric population receives a digital intervention without the direct support of a therapist. We also present an Adverse Event Category Framework for Digital Therapeutic Devices and the Adverse Events Checklist—which assesses 15 different categories of adverse events—that was constructed from this and used in the STOP trial. Conclusions: The example shared in this paper serves as a guide for academics and professionals working in the field of digital mental health. It provides insights into the safety assessment requirements of regulatory bodies when a clinical investigation of a digital mental health intervention is proposed. Methods, scales and tools that could easily be adapted for use in other similar research are presented, with the expectation that these will assist other researchers in the field seeking regulatory approval for digital mental health products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Use of electronic methods to support informed consent ('eConsent') is increasingly popular in clinical research. This commentary reports the approach taken to implement electronic consent methods and subsequent experiences from a range of studies at the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit (CTRU), a large clinical trials unit in the UK. Main text: We implemented a remote eConsent process using the REDCap platform. The process can be used in trials of investigational medicinal products and other intervention types or research designs. Our standard eConsent system focuses on documenting informed consent, with other aspects of consent (e.g. providing information to potential participants and a recruiter discussing the study with each potential participant) occurring outside the system, though trial teams can use electronic methods for these activities where they have ethical approval. Our overall process includes a verbal consent step prior to confidential information being entered onto REDCap and an identity verification step in line with regulator guidance. We considered the regulatory requirements around the system's generation of source documents, how to ensure data protection standards were upheld and how to monitor informed consent within the system. We present four eConsent case studies from the CTRU: two randomised clinical trials and two other health research studies. These illustrate the ways eConsent can be implemented, and lessons learned, including about differences in uptake. Conclusions: We successfully implemented a remote eConsent process at the CTRU across multiple studies. Our case studies highlight benefits of study participants being able to give consent without having to be present at the study site. This may better align with patient preferences and trial site needs and therefore improve recruitment and resilience against external shocks (such as pandemics). Variation in uptake of eConsent may be influenced more by site-level factors than patient preferences, which may not align well with the aspiration towards patient-centred research. Our current process has some limitations, including the provision of all consent-related text in more than one language, and scalability of implementing more than one consent form version at a time. We consider how enhancements in CTRU processes, or external developments, might affect our approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prompt recognition of delirium is the first key step in its proper management. A previous study has demonstrated that nurses' delirium screening using the usual paper version assessment tool has no effect on clinical outcomes. Clinical decision assessment systems have been demonstrated to improve patients' adherence and clinical outcomes. Therefore, We developed a clinical decision assessment system (3D-DST) based on the usual paper version (3-min diagnostic interview for CAM-defined delirium), which was developed for assessing delirium in older adults with high usability and accuracy. However, no high quality evidence exists on the effectiveness of a 3D-DST in improving outcomes of older adults compared to the usual paper version. Methods: A pair-matched, open-label, parallel, cluster randomized controlled superiority trial following the SPIRIT checklist. Older patients aged 65 years or older admitted to four medical wards of a geriatric hospital will be invited to participate in the study. Prior to the study, delirium prevention and treatment interventions will be delivered to nurses in both the intervention and control groups. The nurses in the intervention group will perform routine delirium assessments on the included older patients with 3D-DST, while the nurses in the control group will perform daily delirium assessments with the usual paper version. Enrolled patients will be assessed twice daily for delirium by a nurse researcher using 3D-DST. The primary outcome is delirium duration. The secondary outcomes are delirium severity, incidence of delirium, length of stay, in-hospital mortality, adherence to delirium assessment, prevention, and treatment of medical staff. Discussion: This study will incorporate the 3D-DST into clinical practice for delirium assessment. If our study will demonstrate that 3D-DST will improve adherence with delirium assessment and clinical outcomes in older patients, it will provide important evidence for the management of delirium in the future. Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, Identifier: ChiCTR1900028402. https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=47127. Protocol version: 1, 29/7/22. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinicians and researchers should consider the expected benefits and potential harms of an intervention. Parenting programmes are a widely used evidence-based intervention for child behaviour problems. However, few data are available on potential negative effects. The aims of this paper were to increase systematic knowledge of adverse event (AE) assessment in parenting programmes and to provide an AE assessment tool. Methods: As part of the RISE project (prevention of child mental health problems in South-eastern Europe—adapt, optimise, test and extend parenting for lifelong health), we developed and tested an AE assessment procedure in three sequential studies for parents of children with child behaviour problems aged 2 to 9 years in North Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, and Romania. This paper reports on the development of the assessment tool in phase 1 (N = 140), phase 2 (N = 835), and the final experiences with using the optimised procedures in phase 3 (multisite randomised controlled trial, N = 823) in which AEs were assessed before, three times during intervention delivery, and at 1 year follow-up. At each time point, the participants completed a 12-item AE checklist. If moderate-to-severe problems of parent or child were reported, a structured follow-up interview was conducted. Results: The response rate on the AE assessment tool increased from 6% (phase 1) to 100% (phase 3) indicating improvement in collecting these data based on the experiences of each phase. Results of the RCT (phase 3) showed generally low (S)AE frequencies with the finally optimised procedure: During the intervention, no serious adverse events (SAE) were registered; at least one AE was reported by 10% (after the first session), 7% (after the third session), and 4% (after the last fifth session) of participants. None of the identified (S)AEs was causally related to the study or intervention. Cost–benefit considerations are needed to determine the best way to ensure participant safety in parenting programmes. Conclusion: The applied active AE assessment procedure provides a comprehensive AE assessment tool that can be used by others—with adaptations for the specific context, if needed. Based on our experiences, we outline recommendations for future studies. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, registration number phase 1: NCT03552250; phase 2: NCT03865485, phase 3: . Registered on 13 January 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) involves cognitive decline beyond typical age-related changes, but without significant daily activity disruption. It can encompass various cognitive domains as the causes of MCI are diverse. MCI as well as frequent comorbid neuropsychiatric conditions like depression and anxiety affect individuals' quality of life. Early interventions are essential, and computerized cognitive training (cCT) is an established treatment method. This paper presents the protocol for the NeuroNation MED Effectiveness Study, evaluating the self-administered mobile cCT intervention ("NeuroNation MED") in individuals with MCI to assess training effects on cognitive domains, health competence, neuropsychiatric symptoms, psychological well-being, and the general application usability. Methods: This study protocol presents a single-blinded multicenter randomized controlled trial that will be carried out in six study centers in Germany and Luxembourg. We included adults with MCI (existing F06.7 ICD-10-GM diagnosis and TICS ≥ 21 and ≤ 32). The intervention group will use a mobile, multi-domain cCT ("NeuroNation MED") for 12 weeks. Meanwhile, the wait list control group will receive standard medical care or no care. The eligibility of volunteers will be determined through a telephone screening. After completion of the baseline examination, patients will be randomly assigned to one of the experimental conditions in a 2:1 ratio. In total, 286 participants will be included in this study. The primary outcome is the change of cognitive performance measured by the index score of the screening module of the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery. Secondary outcomes are changes in the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Health-49, Health Literacy Questionnaire, among others. All of the primary and secondary outcomes will be assessed at baseline and after the 12-week post-allocation period. Furthermore, the intervention group will undergo an assessment of the System Usability Scale, and the training data of the NeuroNation MED application will be analyzed. Discussion: This study aims to assess the effectiveness of a mobile self-administered cCT in enhancing cognitive abilities among individuals diagnosed with MCI. Should the findings confirm the effectiveness of the NeuroNation MED app, it may confer possible benefits for the care management of patients with MCI, owing to the accessibility, cost-effectiveness, and home-based setting it provides. Specifically, the cCT program could provide patients with personalized cognitive training, educational resources, and relaxation techniques, enabling participants to independently engage in cognitive training sessions at home without further supervision. Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00025133. Registered on November 5, 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The SAVVY project aims to improve the analyses of adverse events (AEs) in clinical trials through the use of survival techniques appropriately dealing with varying follow-up times and competing events (CEs). This paper summarizes key features and conclusions from the various SAVVY papers. Methods: Summarizing several papers reporting theoretical investigations using simulations and an empirical study including randomized clinical trials from several sponsor organizations, biases from ignoring varying follow-up times or CEs are investigated. The bias of commonly used estimators of the absolute (incidence proportion and one minus Kaplan-Meier) and relative (risk and hazard ratio) AE risk is quantified. Furthermore, we provide a cursory assessment of how pertinent guidelines for the analysis of safety data deal with the features of varying follow-up time and CEs. Results: SAVVY finds that for both, avoiding bias and categorization of evidence with respect to treatment effect on AE risk into categories, the choice of the estimator is key and more important than features of the underlying data such as percentage of censoring, CEs, amount of follow-up, or value of the gold-standard. Conclusions: The choice of the estimator of the cumulative AE probability and the definition of CEs are crucial. Whenever varying follow-up times and/or CEs are present in the assessment of AEs, SAVVY recommends using the Aalen-Johansen estimator (AJE) with an appropriate definition of CEs to quantify AE risk. There is an urgent need to improve pertinent clinical trial reporting guidelines for reporting AEs so that incidence proportions or one minus Kaplan-Meier estimators are finally replaced by the AJE with appropriate definition of CEs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In an era focused on value-based healthcare, the quality of healthcare and resource allocation should be underpinned by empirical evidence. Pragmatic clinical trials (pRCTs) are essential in this endeavor, providing randomized controlled trial (RCT) insights that encapsulate real-world effects of interventions. The rising popularity of pRCTs can be attributed to their ability to mirror real-world practices, accommodate larger sample sizes, and provide cost advantages over traditional RCTs. By harmonizing efficacy with effectiveness, pRCTs assist decision-makers in prioritizing interventions that have a substantial public health impact and align with the tenets of value-based health care. An international network for pRCT provides several advantages, including larger and diverse patient populations, access to a broader range of healthcare settings, sharing knowledge and expertise, and overcoming ethical and regulatory barriers. The hypothesis and study design of pRCT answers the decision-maker's questions. pRCT compares clinically relevant alternative interventions, recruits participants from diverse practice settings, and collects data on various health outcomes. They are scarce because the medical products industry typically does not fund pRCT. Prioritizing these studies by expanding the infrastructure to conduct clinical research within the healthcare delivery system and increasing public and private funding for these studies will be necessary to facilitate pRCTs. These changes require more clinical and health policy decision-makers in clinical research priority setting, infrastructure development, and funding. This paper presents a comprehensive overview of pRCTs, emphasizing their importance in evidence-based medicine and the advantages of an international collaborative network for their execution. It details the development of PRIME-9, an international initiative across nine countries to advance pRCTs, and explores various statistical approaches for these trials. The paper underscores the need to overcome current challenges, such as funding limitations and infrastructural constraints, to leverage the full potential of pRCTs in optimizing healthcare quality and resource utilization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background : Vulnerable children, including those with neuro-developmental delays and disabilities, often face barriers in accessing early primary education, thus hindering progress toward Sustainable Development Goal 4.2. Evidence-based interventions are essential to enhancing inclusivity and establishing sustainable implementation strategies to address this challenge. This study, Every Newborn—Reach up Early Education Intervention for All Children (EN-REACH), builds on the previous Every Newborn- Simplified Measurement Integrating Longitudinal Neurodevelopmental and Growth (EN-SMILING) observational cohort study. This paper provides the protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) to evaluate the effectiveness of a parenting group intervention program for enhancing school readiness in Bangladesh, Nepal, and Tanzania, and an embedded process evaluation to inform scalability and feasibility. Methods: EN-REACH is a cRCT with at least 150 clusters to evaluate the impact of a parent training program led by trained parent-teacher facilitator pairs, focusing on children aged 4 ~ 6 years preparing for preschool. Approximately 500 participants from the EN-SMILING cohort at each site have been identified. A geographic information system will define ~ 50 clusters in each of the three countries, each with approximately ten parent–child dyads. Half the clusters will be randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. The primary outcome is "school readiness", assessed using the Measuring Early Learning Quality and Outcomes tool. Secondary outcomes include Intelligence Quotient, child functioning, growth, visual, and hearing assessments. Data will be collected at baseline, and post-intervention data following implementation of the parent group intervention sessions over approximately 5 months. Quantitative data on coverage and quality care, combined with qualitative insights from children, caregivers, facilitators, and stakeholders' perspectives, will be used to conduct a process evaluation applying the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Discussion: This protocol details a trial focused on enhancing school readiness and cognitive abilities in young children, inclusive of those with disabilities, aiming to bridge gap from home to early primary education. EN-REACH aims to provide insights into the effectiveness and acceptability of a co-designed disability-inclusive school readiness program in three countries, potentially impacting national and global policies for all children, including those with disabilities. Trial registration: The trial was retrospectively registered on clinicaltrials.gov on 29 February 2024 (NCT06334627). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite Africa's significant infectious disease burden, it is underrepresented in global vaccine clinical trials. While this trend is slowly reversing, it is important to recognize and mitigate the challenges that arise when conducting vaccine clinical trials in this environment. These challenges stem from a variety of factors peculiar to the population and may negatively impact adverse event collection and reporting if not properly addressed. Methods: As a team of clinical researchers working within the MRCG (Medical Research Council Unit The Gambia), we have conducted 12 phase 1 to 3 vaccine trials over the past 10 years. In this article, we discuss the challenges we face and the strategies we have developed to improve the collection and reporting of adverse events in low-income settings. Outcome. Healthcare-seeking behaviors in the Gambia are influenced by spiritual and cultural beliefs as well as barriers to accessing orthodox healthcare; participants in trials may resort to non-orthodox care, reducing the accuracy of reported adverse events. To address this, trial eligibility criteria prohibit self-treatment and herbal product use during trials. Instead, round-the-clock care is provided to trial participants, facilitating safety follow-up. Constraints in the healthcare system in the Gambia such as limitations in diagnostic tools limit the specificity of diagnosis when reporting adverse events. To overcome these challenges, the Medical Research Council Unit maintains a Clinical Services Department, offering medical care and diagnostic services to study participants. Sociocultural factors, including low literacy rates and social influences, impact adverse event collection. Solicited adverse events are collected during home visits on paper-based or electronic report forms. Community engagement meetings are held before each study starts to inform community stakeholders about the study and answer any questions they may have. These meetings ensure that influential members of the community understand the purpose of the study and the risks and benefits of participating in the trial. This understanding makes them more likely to support participation within their communities. Conclusion: Conducting ethical vaccine clinical trials in resource-limited settings requires strategies to accurately collect and report adverse events. Our experiences from the Gambia offer insights into adverse event collection in these settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Targeted treatment is highly warranted for cerebral small vessel disease, a causal factor of one in four strokes and a major contributor to vascular dementia. Patients with cerebral small vessel disease have impaired cerebral blood flow and vessel reactivity. Tadalafil is a specific phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor shown to improve vascular reactivity in the brain. Methods: The ETLAS-2 trial is a phase 2 double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled, parallel trial with the feasibility of tadalafil as the primary outcome. The trial aims to include 100 patients with small vessel occlusion stroke or transitory ischemic attacks and signs of cerebral small vessel disease more than 6 months before administration of study medication. Patients are treated for 3 months with tadalafil 20 mg or placebo daily and undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to evaluate changes in small vessel disease according to the STandards for ReportIng Vascular changes on nEuroimaging (STRIVE) criteria as well as cerebral blood flow, cerebrovascular reactivity, and neurovascular coupling in a functional MRI sub-study. The investigation includes comprehensive cognitive testing using paper–pencil tests and Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) tests in a cognitive sub-study. Discussion: The ETLAS-2 trial tests the feasibility of long-term treatment with tadalafil and explores vascular and cognitive effects in cerebral small vessel disease in trial sub-studies. The study aims to propose a new treatment target and improve the understanding of small vessel disease. Currently, 64 patients have been included and the trial is estimated to be completed in the year 2024. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05173896. Registered on 30 December 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The FICUS trial is a cluster-randomized superiority trial to determine the effectiveness of a nurse-led, interprofessional family support intervention (FSI) on the quality of care, family management and individual mental health of family members of critically ill patients, compared to usual care. This paper describes the statistical analysis plan of the FICUS trial. The primary outcome is quality of family care, assessed by the Family Satisfaction in ICU Questionnaire (FS-ICU-24R) at patient discharge from the ICU. Several secondary outcomes are additionally assessed 3, 6, and 12 months thereafter. Sixteen clusters (ICUs) were randomly assigned 1:1 to FSI or usual care using minimization (8 per treatment). The target sample size is 56 patients per cluster (896 in total). Recruitment has been completed in January 2024. The follow-up of the last participant will be completed in early 2025. The primary and secondary outcomes will be analyzed by linear mixed-effects models (LMM). The main model for the primary outcome will include a random intercept per cluster with treatment (FSI vs. usual care) as the only explanatory variable due to the relatively small number of clusters. In addition, covariate-adjusted analyses will be conducted, including two cluster-level characteristics used in the minimization as well as participant-level characteristics. Moreover, a number of subgroup analyses by cluster- and participant-level characteristics are pre-specified. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05280691. Registered on February 20, 2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Platform trial In COVID-19 priming and BOOsting (PICOBOO) is a multi-site, adaptive platform trial designed to generate evidence of the immunogenicity, reactogenicity, and cross-protection of different booster vaccination strategies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its variants, specific for the Australian context. The PICOBOO trial randomises participants to receive one of three COVID-19 booster vaccine brands (Pfizer, Moderna, Novavax) available for use in Australia, where the vaccine brand subtypes vary over time according to the national vaccine roll out strategy, and employs a Bayesian hierarchical modelling approach to efficiently borrow information across consecutive booster doses, age groups and vaccine brand subtypes. Here, we briefly describe the PICOBOO trial structure and report the statistical considerations for the estimands, statistical models and decision making for trial adaptations. This paper should be read in conjunction with the PICOBOO Core Protocol and PICOBOO Sub-Study Protocol 1: Booster Vaccination. PICOBOO was registered on 10 February 2022 with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12622000238774. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sharing trial results with participants is a moral imperative, but too often does not happen in appropriate ways. Methods: We carried out semi-structured interviews with patients (n = 13) and site staff (n = 11), and surveyed 180 patients and 68 site staff who were part of the Show RESPECT study, which tested approaches to sharing results with participants in the context of the ICON8 ovarian cancer trial (ISRCTN10356387). Qualitative and free-text data were analysed thematically, and findings used to develop the SHOW RESPECT adaptable framework of considerations for planning how to share trial results with participants. This paper presents the framework, with illustrations drawn from the Show RESPECT study. Results: Our adaptable 'SHOW RESPECT' framework covers (1) Supporting and preparing trial participants to receive results, (2) HOw will the results reach participants?, (3) Who are the trial participants?, (4) REsults—what do they show?, (5) Special considerations, (6) Provider—who will share results with participants?, (7) Expertise and resources, (8) Communication tools and (9) Timing of sharing results. While the data upon which the framework is based come from a single trial, many of our findings are corroborated by findings from other studies in this area, supporting the transferability of our framework to trials beyond the UK ovarian cancer setting in which our work took place. Conclusions: This adaptable 'SHOW RESPECT' framework can guide researchers as they plan how to share aggregate trial results with participants. While our data are drawn from a single trial context, the findings from Show RESPECT illustrate how approaches to communication in a specific trial can influence patient and staff experiences of feedback of trial results. The framework generated from these findings can be adapted to fit different trial contexts and used by other researchers to plan the sharing of results with their own participants. Trial registration: ISRCTN96189403. Registered on February 26, 2019. Show RESPECT was supported by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12023/24 and MC_UU_00004/08) and the NIHR CRN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has posed daunting challenges when conducting clinical research. Adopting new technologies such as remote electronic consent (e-Consent) can help overcome them. However, guidelines for e-Consent implementation in ongoing clinical trials are currently lacking. The NeuroSAFE PROOF trial is a randomized clinical trial evaluating the role of frozen section analysis during RARP for prostate cancer. In response to the COVID-19 crisis, recruitment was halted, and a remote e-Consent solution was designed. The aim of this paper is to describe the process of implementation, impact on recruitment rate, and patients' experience using e-Consent.Methods: A substantial amendment of the protocol granted the creation of a remote e-Consent framework based on the REDCap environment, following the structure and content of the already approved paper consent form. Although e-Consent obviated the need for in-person meeting, there was nonetheless counselling sessions performed interactively online. This new pathway offered continuous support to patients through remote consultations. The whole process was judged to be compliant with regulatory requirements before implementation.Results: Before the first recruitment suspension, NeuroSAFE PROOF was recruiting an average of 9 patients per month. After e-Consent implementation, 63 new patients (4/month) have been enrolled despite a second lockdown, none of whom would have been recruited using the old methods given restrictions on face-to-face consultations. Patients have given positive feedback on the use of the platform. Limited troubleshooting has been required after implementation.Conclusion: Remote e-Consent-based recruitment was critical for the continuation of the NeuroSAFE PROOF trial during the COVID-19 pandemic. The described pathway complies with ethical and regulatory guidelines for informed consent, while minimizing face-to-face interactions that increase the risk of COVID-19 transmission. This guide will help researchers integrate e-Consent to ongoing or planned clinical trials while uncertainty about the course of the pandemic continues.Trial Registration: NeuroSAFE PROOF trial NCT03317990 . Registered on 23 October 2017. Regional Ethics Committee reference 17/LO/1978. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: Multi-arm non-inferiority (MANI) trials, here defined as non-inferiority trials with multiple experimental treatment arms, can be useful in situations where several viable treatments exist for a disease area or for testing different dose schedules. To maintain the statistical integrity of such trials, issues regarding both design and analysis must be considered, from both the multi-arm and the non-inferiority perspectives. Little guidance currently exists on exactly how these aspects should be addressed and it is the aim of this paper to provide recommendations to aid the design of future MANI trials.Methods: A comprehensive literature review covering four databases was conducted to identify publications associated with MANI trials. Literature was split into methodological and trial publications in order to investigate the required design and analysis considerations for MANI trials and whether they were being addressed in practice.Results: A number of issues were identified that if not properly addressed, could lead to issues with the FWER, power or bias. These ranged from the structuring of trial hypotheses at the design stage to the consideration of potential heterogeneous treatment variances at the analysis stage. One key issue of interest was adjustment for multiple testing at the analysis stage. There was little consensus concerning whether more powerful p value adjustment methods were preferred to approximate adjusted CIs when presenting and interpreting the results of MANI trials. We found 65 examples of previous MANI trials, of which 31 adjusted for multiple testing out of the 39 that were adjudged to require it. Trials generally preferred to utilise simple, well-known methods for study design and analysis and while some awareness was shown concerning FWER inflation and choice of power, many trials seemed not to consider the issues and did not provide sufficient definition of their chosen design and analysis approaches.Conclusions: While MANI trials to date have shown some awareness of the issues raised within this paper, very few have satisfied the criteria of the outlined recommendations. Going forward, trials should consider the recommendations in this paper and ensure they clearly define and reason their choices of trial design and analysis techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Underrepresentation of disabled groups in clinical trials results in an inadequate evidence base for their clinical care, which drives health inequalities. This study aims to review and map the potential barriers and facilitators to the recruitment of disabled people in clinical trials to identify knowledge gaps and areas for further extensive research. The review addresses the question: 'What are the barriers and facilitators to recruitment of disabled people to clinical trials?'. Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Scoping review guidelines were followed to complete the current scoping review. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched via Ovid. The literature search was guided by a combination of four key concepts from the research question: (1) disabled populations, (2) patient recruitment, (3) barriers and facilitators, and (4) clinical trials. Papers discussing barriers and facilitators of all types were included. Papers that did not have at least one disabled group as their population were excluded. Data on study characteristics and identified barriers and facilitators were extracted. Identified barriers and facilitators were then synthesised according to common themes. Results: The review included 56 eligible papers. The evidence on barriers and facilitators was largely sourced from Short Communications from Researcher Perspectives (N = 22) and Primary Quantitative Research (N = 17). Carer perspectives were rarely represented in articles. The most common disability types for the population of interest in the literature were neurological and psychiatric disabilities. A total of five emergent themes were determined across the barriers and facilitators. These were as follows: risk vs benefit assessment, design and management of recruitment protocol, balancing internal and external validity considerations, consent and ethics, and systemic factors. Conclusions: Both barriers and facilitators were often highly specific to disability type and context. Assumptions should be minimised, and study design should prioritise principles of co-design and be informed by a data-driven assessment of needs for the study population. Person-centred approaches to consent that empower disabled people to exercise their right to choose should be adopted in inclusive practice. Implementing these recommendations stands to improve inclusive practices in clinical trial research, serving to produce a well-rounded and comprehensive evidence base. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research into life-threatening illnesses which require emergency hospitalisation is essential. This group of patients is unique in that they are experiencing an unfolding emergency when they are approached, enrolled, and followed up in a research study. We aimed to synthesise qualitative data from trial participants and surrogate decision-makers to deepen our understanding and inform the design and conduct of future clinical trials for life-threatening illnesses. Methods: We conducted a critical interpretive synthesis of qualitative data from trial participants and surrogate decision-makers related to the experience of participating in a clinical research study when suffering from a life-threatening illness. A scoping review informed a systematic review of published data. We searched research databases and reviewed papers for inclusion. Primary data and interpretations of data were extracted from each paper. Data were analysed using reciprocal translational analysis, refutational synthesis, and lines of argument synthesis to develop a synthetic construct. Results: Twenty-two papers were included. Most individuals had no previous knowledge or experience with clinical research. Individuals making decisions were directly experiencing or witness to an unfolding emergency which came with a myriad of physical and psychological symptoms. It was difficult to differentiate clinical research and routine care, and understanding of core concepts around research, particularly randomisation and equipoise, was limited. We found that this led to an underestimation of risk, an overestimation of benefit, and an expectation of being allocated to the intervention arm. The decision-making process was heavily influenced by trust in the research team. Individuals suggested that abbreviated information, presented in different ways and continuously throughout the research process, would have increased knowledge and satisfaction with the research process. Conclusion: Individuals suffering from a life-threatening illness who are being invited to participate in clinical research need to be managed in a way that adapts to the severity of their illness and there is a need to tailor research processes, including informed consent, accordingly. We provide suggestions for further research and implementation work around research participation for individuals suffering from a life-threatening illness. Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42020207296 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Providing evidence of impact highlights the benefits of medical research to society. Such evidence is increasingly requested by research funders and commonly relies on citation analysis. However, other indicators may be more informative. Although frameworks to demonstrate the impact of clinical research have been reported, no complementary framework exists for methodological research. Therefore, we assessed the impact of methodological research projects conducted or completed between 2009 and 2012 at the UK Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit Hub for Trials Methodology ResearchHub, with a view to developing an appropriate framework. Methods Various approaches to the collection of data on research impact were employed. Citation rates were obtained using Web of Science (http://www.webofknowledge.com/) and analyzed descriptively. Semistructured interviews were conducted to obtain information on the rates of different types of research output that indicated impact for each project. Results were then pooled across all projects. Finally, email queries pertaining to methodology projects were collected retrospectively and their content analyzed. Results Simple citation analysis established the citation rates per year since publication for 74 methodological publications; however, further detailed analysis revealed more about the potential influence of these citations. Interviews that spanned 20 individual research projects demonstrated a variety of types of impact not otherwise collated, for example, applications and further developments of the research; release of software and provision of guidance materials to facilitate uptake; formation of new collaborations and broad dissemination. Finally, 194 email queries relating to 6 methodological projects were received from 170 individuals across 23 countries. They provided further evidence that the methodologies were impacting on research and research practice, both nationally and internationally. We have used the information gathered in this study to adapt an existing framework for impact of clinical research for use in methodological research. Conclusions Gathering evidence on research impact of methodological research from a variety of sources has enabled us to obtain multiple indicators and thus to demonstrate broad impacts of methodological research. The adapted framework developed can be applied to future methodological research and thus provides a tool for methodologists to better assess and report research impacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adverse events suffer from poor reporting within randomised controlled trials, despite them being crucial to the evaluation of a treatment. A recent update to the CONSORT harms checklist aims to improve reporting by providing structure and consistency to the information presented. We propose an extension wherein harms would be reported in conjunction with effectiveness outcome(s) rather than in silo to provide a more complete picture of the evidence acquired within a trial. Benefit-risk methods are designed to simultaneously consider both benefits and risks, and therefore, we believe these methods could be implemented to improve the prominence of adverse events when reporting trials. The aim of this article is to use case studies to demonstrate the practical utility of benefit-risk methods to present adverse events results alongside effectiveness results. Two randomised controlled trials have been selected as case studies, the Option-DM trial and the SANAD II trial. Using a previous review, a shortlist of 17 benefit-risk methods which could potentially be used for reporting RCTs was created. From this shortlist, three benefit-risk methods are applied across the two case studies. We selected these methods for their usefulness to achieve the aim of this paper and which are commonly used in the literature. The methods selected were the Benefit-Risk Action Team (BRAT) Framework, net clinical benefit (NCB), and the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 3 × 3 table. Results using the benefit-risk method added further context and detail to the clinical summaries made from the trials. In the case of the SANAD II trial, the clinicians concluded that despite the primary outcome being improved by the treatment, the increase in adverse events negated the improvement and the treatment was therefore not recommended. The benefit-risk methods applied to this case study outlined the data that this decision was based on in a clear and transparent way. Using benefit-risk methods to report the results of trials can increase the prominence of adverse event results by presenting them alongside the primary efficacy/effectiveness outcomes. This ensures that all the factors which would be used to determine whether a treatment would be recommended are transparent to the reader. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Surgical handover is associated with a significant risk of care failures. Existing research displays methodological deficiencies and little consensus on the outcomes that should be used to evaluate interventions in this area. This paper reports a protocol to develop a core outcome set (COS) to support standardisation, comparability, and evidence synthesis in future studies of surgical handover between doctors. Methods: This study adheres to the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative guidance for COS development, including the COS-Standards for Development (COS-STAD) and Reporting (COS-STAR) recommendations. It has been registered prospectively on the COMET database and will be led by an international steering group that includes surgical healthcare professionals, researchers, and patient and public partners. An initial list of reported outcomes was generated through a systematic review of interventions to improve surgical handover (PROSPERO: CRD42022363198). Findings of a qualitative evidence synthesis of patient and public perspectives on handover will augment this list, followed by a real-time Delphi survey involving all stakeholder groups. Each Delphi participant will then be invited to take part in at least one online consensus meeting to finalise the COS. Ethics and dissemination: This study was approved by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI) Research Ethics Committee (202309015, 7th November 2023). Results will be presented at surgical scientific meetings and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. A plain English summary will be disseminated through national websites and social media. The authors aim to integrate the COS into the handover curriculum of the Irish national surgical training body and ensure it is shared internationally with other postgraduate surgical training programmes. Collaborators will be encouraged to share the findings with relevant national health service functions and national bodies. Discussion: This study will represent the first published COS for interventions to improve surgical handover, the first use of a real-time Delphi survey in a surgical context, and will support the generation of better-quality evidence to inform best practice. Trial registration: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative 2675. http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2675. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Brief Educational Workshops in Secondary Schools Trial (BESST) is an England-wide school-based cluster randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an open-access psychological workshop programme (DISCOVER) for 16–18-year-olds. This baseline paper describes the self-referral and other recruitment processes used in this study and the baseline characteristics of the enrolled schools and participants. Method: We enrolled 900 participants from 57 Secondary schools across England from 4th October 2021 to 10th November 2022. Schools were randomised to receive either the DISCOVER day-long Stress workshop or treatment as usual which included signposting information. Participants will be followed up for 6 months with outcome data collection at baseline, 3-month, and 6-month post randomisation. Results: Schools were recruited from a geographically and ethnically diverse sample across England. To reduce stigma, students were invited to self-refer into the study if they wanted help for stress. Their mean age was 17.2 (SD = 0.6), 641 (71%) were female and 411 (45.6%) were from ethnic minority groups. The general wellbeing of our sample measured using the Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (MFQ) found 314 (35%) of students exhibited symptoms of depression at baseline. Eighty percent of students reported low wellbeing on the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS) suggesting that although the overall sample mean is below the cut-off for depression, the self-referral approach used in this study supports distressed students in coming forward. Conclusion: The BESST study will continue to follow up participants to collect outcome data and results will be analysed once all the data have been collected. Trial registration: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN90912799. Registered on 28 May 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This paper describes the protocols for a randomized controlled trial using a parallel-group trial design that includes an intervention designed to address social isolation and loneliness among people experiencing homelessness known as Miracle Friends and an intervention that combines Miracles Friends with an economic poverty-reduction intervention known as Miracle Money. Miracle Friends pairs an unhoused person with a volunteer "phone buddy." Miracle Money provides guaranteed basic income of $750 per month for 1 year to Miracle Friends participants. The study will examine whether either intervention reduces social isolation or homelessness compared to a waitlist control group. Methods: Unhoused individuals who expressed interest in the Miracle Friends program were randomized to either receive the intervention or be placed on a waitlist for Miracle Friends. Among those randomized to receive the Miracle Friends intervention, randomization also determined whether they would be offered Miracle Money. The possibility of receiving basic income was only disclosed to study participants if they were randomly selected and participated in the Miracle Friends program. All study participants, regardless of assignment, were surveyed every 3 months for 15 months. Results: Of 760 unhoused individuals enrolled in the study, 256 were randomized to receive Miracle Friends, 267 were randomized to receive Miracle Money, and 237 were randomized to the waitlist control group. In the two intervention groups, 360 of 523 unhoused individuals were initially matched to a phone buddy. Of the 191 study participants in the Miracle Money group who had been initially matched to a volunteer phone buddy, 103 were deemed to be participating in the program and began receiving monthly income. Discussion: This randomized controlled trial will determine whether innovative interventions involving volunteer phone support and basic income reduce social isolation and improve housing outcomes for people experiencing homelessness. Although we enrolled unhoused individuals who initially expressed interest in the Miracle Friends program, the study team could not reach approximately 30% of individuals referred to the study. This may reflect the general lack of stability in the lives of people who are unhoused or limitations in the appeal of such a program to some portion of the unhoused population. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05408884 (first submitted on May 26, 2022). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To establish if Black adults and adult ethnic minorities, defined as any group except White British, were represented in UK-based COVID-19 vaccination randomised controlled trials (RCTs) when compared to corresponding UK population proportions, based on 2011 census data. Design: Systematic review of COVID-19 Randomised Controlled Vaccine Trials Setting: United Kingdom Participants: Randomised Controlled Trials of COVID-19 vaccines conducted in the UK were systematically reviewed following PRISMA guidelines. MeSH terms included "Covid-19 vaccine", "Ad26COVS1", and "BNT162 Vaccine" with keywords such as [covishield OR coronavac OR Vaxzevria OR NVX-CoV2373] also used. Studies that provided (A) participant demographics and (B) full eligibility criteria were included. The following key data was extracted for analysis: number of participants analysed, number of Black adults and number of adult minority ethnicity participants. Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The primary outcome is the mean percentage of Black adults randomised to COVID-19 vaccine trials deemed eligible within this review. The secondary outcome is the mean percentage of adult ethnic minorities randomised. Results: The final review included 7 papers and a total of 87 sets of data collated from trial sites across the UK. The standard mean percentage of Black adults included in the trials (0.59%, 95% CI: 0.13% - 1.05%) was significantly lower compared to the recorded Black adult population (2.67%) indicating that they were under-served in UK based COVID-19 vaccine RCTs (p < 0.001). Adult ethnic minority presence (8.94%, 95% CI: 2.07% - 15.80%) was also lower than census data (16.30%), indicating they were also under-served (p = 0.039). Conclusion: The findings show that COVID-19 vaccine trials failed to adequately randomise proportionate numbers of Black adults and adult minority ethnicities. More inclusive practices must be developed and implemented in the recruitment of underserved groups to understand the true impact of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recruiting patients to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often reported to be challenging, and the evidence base for effective interventions that could be used by staff (recruiters) undertaking recruitment is lacking. Although the experiences and perspectives of recruiters have been widely reported, an evidence synthesis is required in order to inform the development of future interventions. This paper aims to address this by systematically searching and synthesising the evidence on recruiters' perspectives and experiences of recruiting patients into RCTs.  METHODS: A qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) following Thomas and Harden's approach to thematic synthesis was conducted. The Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ORRCA and Web of Science electronic databases were searched. Studies were sampled to ensure that the focus of the research was aligned with the phenomena of interest of the QES, their methodological relevance to the QES question, and to include variation across the clinical areas of the studies. The GRADE CERQual framework was used to assess confidence in the review findings.Results: In total, 9316 studies were identified for screening, which resulted in 128 eligible papers. The application of the QES sampling strategy resulted in 30 papers being included in the final analysis. Five overlapping themes were identified which highlighted the complex manner in which recruiters experience RCT recruitment: (1) recruiting to RCTs in a clinical environment, (2) enthusiasm for the RCT, (3) making judgements about whether to approach a patient, (4) communication challenges, (5) interplay between recruiter and professional roles.Conclusions: This QES identified factors which contribute to the complexities that recruiters can face in day-to-day clinical settings, and the influence recruiters and non-recruiting healthcare professionals have on opportunities afforded to patients for RCT participation. It has reinforced the importance of considering the clinical setting in its entirety when planning future RCTs and indicated the need to better normalise and support research if it is to become part of day-to-day practice.Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020141297 (registered 11/02/2020). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical study protocols are the foundation of good clinical studies. Prospective and multidisciplinary collaboration that pays attention to the design of all components of the study protocol can ensure that a clinical study will answer the research questions posed in a reliable manner that is meaningful for decision-makers and patients. The ICH E9(R1) addendum on estimands and sensitivity analysis in clinical trials provides a framework for clinical study planning to ensure alignment between study objectives, design, conduct, and analysis. The estimand or clinical question posed can be regarded as the backbone of the study and the clinical study protocol should reflect estimands accordingly. In practice, stakeholders are still learning how to embrace the estimand framework and how it impacts studies and study documents. In this paper, we anticipate that a protocol structure centred around estimands, or objectives rather than endpoints alone will prevail for all types of studies. To assist sponsors during this paradigm shift, this paper provides discussion and guidance for implementing the estimand framework in protocol templates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected how clinical trials are managed, both within existing portfolios and for the rapidly developed COVID-19 trials. Sponsors or delegated organisations responsible for monitoring trials have needed to consider and implement alternative ways of working due to the national infection risk necessitating restricted movement of staff and public, reduced clinical staff resource as research staff moved to clinical areas, and amended working arrangements for sponsor and sponsor delegates as staff moved to working from home.Organisations have often worked in isolation to fast track mitigations required for the conduct of clinical trials during the pandemic; this paper describes many of the learnings from a group of monitoring leads based in United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Clinical Trials Unit (CTUs) within the UK.The UKCRC Monitoring Task and Finish Group, comprising monitoring leads from 9 CTUs, met repeatedly to identify how COVID-19 had affected clinical trial monitoring. Informed consent is included as a specific issue within this paper, as review of completed consent documentation is often required within trial monitoring plans (TMPs). Monitoring is defined as involving on-site monitoring, central monitoring or/and remote monitoring.Monitoring, required to protect the safety of the patients and the integrity of the trial and ensure the protocol is followed, is often best done by a combination of central, remote and on-site monitoring. However, if on-site monitoring is not possible, workable solutions can be found using only central or central and remote monitoring. eConsent, consent by a third person, or via remote means is plausible. Minimising datasets to the critical data reduces workload for sites and CTU staff. Home working caused by COVID-19 has made electronic trial master files (TMFs) more inviting. Allowing sites to book and attend protocol training at a time convenient to them has been successful and worth pursuing for trials with many sites in the future.The arrival of COVID-19 in the UK has forced consideration of and changes to how clinical trials are conducted in relation to monitoring. Some developed practices will be useful in other pandemics and others should be incorporated into regular use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cornea is the most important refractive media in the eye, and damage to the corneal endothelium is one of the most common causes of poor visual outcome following cataract surgery, particularly in those with predisposing factors. The role of phaco tip position during phacoemulsification on corneal endothelial damage is ambiguous, and there is no consensus regarding the most cornea-friendly phaco tip position (bevel-up or bevel-down). The objective of the trial is to compare the effect of phaco tip position (bevel-up vs. bevel-down) during phacoemulsification using direct chop technique on corneal endothelial cell count. Methods and design: TIPS is a randomised, multicentre, parallel-group, triple-masked (participant, outcome assessor, and statistician) trial with 1:1 allocation ratio. A total of 480 eligible participants, aged > 18 years with immature cataract, will be randomly allocated into bevel-up and bevel-down groups at two centres. Randomisation will be stratified according to the cataract grade. The primary outcome is postoperative endothelial cell count at 1 month. Secondary outcomes are central corneal thickness on postoperative days 1, 15, and 30 and difference in intraoperative complications. Conclusion: In this paper, we describe the detailed statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the TIPS trial, which was prepared prior to database lock. The SAP includes details of planned analyses and unpopulated tables, which will be reported in the publications. We plan to lock the database in July 2023 and publish the results later in the same year. SAP Version 0.1 (dated: 28 April 2023) Protocol version:2.0 Trial registration: Clinical Trial Registry of India CTRI/2019/02/017464. Registered on 5 February 2019; https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?trialid=29764&EncHid=&userName=2019/02/017464 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]