Search

Abstract Background Healthcare system data (HSD) are increasingly used in clinical trials, augmenting or replacing traditional methods of collecting outcome data. This study, PRIMORANT, set out to identify, in the UK context, issues to be considered before the decision to use HSD for outcome data in a clinical trial is finalised, a methodological question prioritised by the clinical trials community. Methods The PRIMORANT study had three phases. First, an initial workshop was held to scope the issues faced by trialists when considering whether to use HSDs for trial outcomes. Second, a consultation exercise was undertaken with clinical trials unit (CTU) staff, trialists, methodologists, clinicians, funding panels and data providers. Third, a final discussion workshop was held, at which the results of the consultation were fed back, case studies presented, and issues considered in small breakout groups. Results Key topics included in the consultation process were the validity of outcome data, timeliness of data capture, internal pilots, data-sharing, practical issues, and decision-making. A majority of consultation respondents (n = 78, 95%) considered the development of guidance for trialists to be feasible. Guidance was developed following the discussion workshop, for the five broad areas of terminology, feasibility, internal pilots, onward data sharing, and data archiving. Conclusions We provide guidance to inform decisions about whether or not to use HSDs for outcomes, and if so, to assist trialists in working with registries and other HSD providers to improve the design and delivery of trials.

Abstract Background Development and use of core outcome set(s) (COS) in research can reduce research wastage by ensuring that a minimum set of outcomes are always reported on. Neonatal morbidity and mortality are a big burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Research is continuously being undertaken to reduce this burden. Currently, there is no COS for neonatal research in LMICs but there exists one for neonatal research in high-income countries (HICs). Objectives To determine outcomes that are useful for neonatal care in Kenya to inform whether an existing COS should be adopted or adapted. To assess the feasibility of a routine data collection system to collect data of the agreed-on COS. Methods A review of existing literature on neonatal research in LMICs followed by a qualitative study of key stakeholders in neonatal care. To explore whether to adapt or adopt, in two hospitals, two focus group discussions with 6–8 parents/caregivers will be undertaken (one each in two hospitals). Key informant interviews will also be conducted with 6 health care providers in each of the hospitals. At the policy-making level, we will conduct 10 key informant interviews. Qualitative data will be analyzed thematically. A consensus meeting will be undertaken with key stakeholders, who will be presented with an overview of the COS developed for HICs, key findings from the literature, and the qualitative study to determine context-appropriate COS. The agreed-on outcomes will be counterchecked against the case records in the two hospitals. The feasibility of collecting the outcomes on a routine electronic research database, the Clinical Information Network that collects standardized data at admission and discharge, will be explored. The congruence (or not) of the outcomes will be documented and be used to enrich the discussion and provide a snapshot of the feasibility of the health information system to collect routine data on the COS. Conclusions A COS for use in neonatal care in Kenya will help enhance outcome measurements and reporting not just in research but also in routine practice. This will enhance the comparability of interventions in trials and routine settings leading to reduced research wastage and likely improved quality of care. Additionally, the methodology used for this work can be adopted in other settings as a means of adopting or adapting an existing COS.

Abstract Background Bronchiolitis is an acute lower respiratory infection which predominantly affects young children. Treatment for bronchiolitis is limited to supportive therapy. Nasal oxygen therapy is part of routine care, and delivery now incorporates varying levels of non-invasive continuous positive airway pressure and/or high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy. Despite wide clinical use, there remains a lack of evidence on the comparative effectiveness and safety of these interventions. Furthermore, research in this field is hampered by the use of multiple outcome measures in current clinical trials. Methods/design This mixed methods study includes a systematic review of outcome measures, telephone interviews with parents, focus group workshops and a Delphi survey with healthcare professionals and parents. These methods will be used to identify and prioritise outcomes for inclusion in a core outcome set and to explore issues pertinent to the design of a future randomised controlled trial comparing different modes of oxygen therapy for bronchiolitis. UK hospitals will also be contacted and asked to complete a survey to provide an overview of current practice to enable assessment of capability and capacity to run a future clinical trial. Discussion This study will facilitate the design of a future clinical trial of non-invasive ventilation in children with bronchiolitis which is acceptable to important stakeholders. Furthermore, core outcome set development will improve standardisation, measurement and reporting of clinically important outcomes in bronchiolitis. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN75766048. Registered on 18 December 2017. This study was retrospectively registered in the ISRCTN Registry and on the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative database (15 September 2017).

Abstract Background Sciatica is a common condition reported to affect over 3% of the UK population at any time and is often caused by a prolapsed intervertebral disc (PID). Although the duration and severity of symptoms can vary, pain persisting beyond 6 weeks is unlikely to recover spontaneously and may require investigation and treatment. Currently, there is no specific care pathway for sciatica in the National Health Service (NHS), and no direct comparison exists between surgical microdiscectomy and transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI). The NERVES (NErve Root block VErsus Surgery) trial aims to address this by comparing clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical microdiscectomy and TFESI to treat sciatica secondary to a PID. Methods/design A total of 163 patients were recruited from NHS out-patient clinics across the UK and randomised to either microdiscectomy or TFESI. Adult patients (aged 16–65 years) with sciatic pain endured for between 6 weeks and 12 months are eligible if their symptoms have not been improved by at least one form of conservative (non-operative) treatment and they are willing to provide consent. Patients will be excluded if they present with neurological deficit or have had previous surgery at the same level. The primary outcome is patient-reported disability measured using the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) score at 18 weeks post randomisation and secondary outcomes include disability and pain scales using numerical pain ratings, modified Roland-Morris and Core Outcome Measures Index at 12-weekly intervals, and patient satisfaction at 54 weeks. Cost-effectiveness and quality of life (QOL) will be assessed using the EQ-5D-5 L and self-report cost data at 12-weekly intervals and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data. Adverse event data will be collected. Analysis will follow the principle of intention-to-treat. Discussion NERVES is the first trial to evaluate the comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness of microdiscectomy to local anaesthetic and steroid administered via TFESI. The results of this research may facilitate the development of an evidence-based treatment strategy for patients with sciatica. Trial registration ISRCTN, ID: ISRCTN04820368. Registered on 5 June 2014. EudraCT EudraCT2014–002751-25. Registered on 8 October 2014.

Abstract Background Existing data on physical rehabilitation interventions in critical illness are challenged by outcome heterogeneity that limits data synthesis and translation of research findings into clinical practice. This protocol describes the PRACTICE study to develop a core outcome set (COS) for trials of physical rehabilitation interventions delivered across the continuum of a patient’s recovery from the intensive care unit until reintegration in the community following hospital discharge. Methods Mixed methods will be used including: systematic reviews of quantitative and qualitative literature; qualitative interviews with patients and caregivers; a modified Delphi consensus process with researcher, clinician and patient/caregiver stakeholder groups; and consensus meetings for ratification of findings, resolving uncertainty, or developing an action plan for COS implementation. Discussion The PRACTICE COS will inform relevant stakeholders about important outcomes regarding physical rehabilitation in critical illness, and may enhance the future design and conduct of trials in this area. Trial registration COMET database (www.comet-initiative.org/, Record ID 288, 01/03/13). PROSPERO database (CRD42014008908, CRD42017078549).

Abstract Background The key aim of the study is to establish an agreed standardised core outcome set (COS) for use when evaluating non-pharmacological health and social care interventions for people living at home with dementia. Methods/design Drawing on the guidance and approaches of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), this study uses a four-phase mixed-methods design:1Focus groups and interviews with key stakeholder groups (people living with dementia, care partners, relevant health and social care professionals, researchers and policymakers) and a review of the literature will be undertaken to build a long list of outcomes.2Two rounds of Delphi surveys will be used with key stakeholder groups. Statements for the Delphi surveys and participation processes will be developed and informed through substantial member involvement with people living with dementia and care partners. A consensus meeting will be convened with key participant groups to discuss the key findings and finalise the COS.3A systematic literature review will be undertaken to assess the properties of tools and instruments to assess components of the COS. Measurement properties, validity and reliability will be assessed using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement (COSMIN) and COMET guidance.4A stated preference survey will elicit the preferences of key stakeholders for the outcomes identified as important to measure in the COS. Discussion To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to use a modified Delphi process to involve people living with dementia as a participant group. Though the study is confined to collecting data in the United Kingdom, use of the COS by researchers will enhance the comparability of studies evaluating non-pharmacological and community-based interventions. Trial registration The study is registered on the COMET initiative, registered in 2014 at comet-initiative.org.

Abstract Background When a randomised trial is subject to deviations from randomised treatment, analysis according to intention-to-treat does not estimate two important quantities: relative treatment efficacy and effectiveness in a setting different from that in the trial. Even in trials of a predominantly pragmatic nature, there may be numerous reasons to consider the extent, and impact on analysis, of such deviations from protocol. Simple methods such as per-protocol or as-treated analyses, which exclude or censor patients on the basis of their adherence, usually introduce selection and confounding biases. However, there exist appropriate causal estimation methods which seek to overcome these inherent biases, but these methods remain relatively unfamiliar and are rarely implemented in trials. Methods This paper demonstrates when it may be of interest to look beyond intention-to-treat analysis for answers to alternative causal research questions through illustrative case studies. We seek to guide trialists on how to handle treatment changes in the design, conduct and planning the analysis of a trial; these changes may be planned or unplanned, and may or may not be permitted in the protocol. We highlight issues that must be considered at the trial planning stage relating to: the definition of nonadherence and the causal research question of interest, trial design, data collection, monitoring, statistical analysis and sample size. Results and conclusions During trial planning, trialists should define their causal research questions of interest, anticipate the likely extent of treatment changes and use these to inform trial design, including the extent of data collection and data monitoring. A series of concise recommendations is presented to guide trialists when considering undertaking causal analyses.

Abstract Background The failure to retain patients or collect primary-outcome data is a common challenge for trials and reduces the statistical power and potentially introduces bias into the analysis. Identifying strategies to minimise missing data was the second highest methodological research priority in a Delphi survey of the Directors of UK Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) and is important to minimise waste in research. Our aim was to assess the current retention practices within the UK and priorities for future research to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies to reduce attrition. Methods Seventy-five chief investigators of NIHR Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-funded trials starting between 2009 and 2012 were surveyed to elicit their awareness about causes of missing data within their trial and recommended practices for improving retention. Forty-seven CTUs registered within the UKCRC network were surveyed separately to identify approaches and strategies being used to mitigate missing data across trials. Responses from the current practice surveys were used to inform a subsequent two-round Delphi survey with registered CTUs. A consensus list of retention research strategies was produced and ranked by priority. Results Fifty out of seventy-five (67%) chief investigators and 33/47 (70%) registered CTUs completed the current practice surveys. Seventy-eight percent of trialists were aware of retention challenges and implemented strategies at trial design. Patient-initiated withdrawal was the most common cause of missing data. Registered CTUs routinely used newsletters, timeline of participant visits, and telephone reminders to mitigate missing data. Whilst 36 out of 59 strategies presented had been formally or informally evaluated, some frequently used strategies, such as site initiation training, have had no research to inform practice. Thirty-five registered CTUs (74%) participated in the Delphi survey. Research into the effectiveness of site initiation training, frequency of patient contact during a trial, the use of routinely collected data, the frequency and timing of reminders, triggered site training and the time needed to complete questionnaires was deemed critical. Research into the effectiveness of Christmas cards for site staff was not of critical importance. Conclusion The surveys of current practices demonstrates that a variety of strategies are being used to mitigate missing data but with little evidence to support their use. Six retention strategies were deemed critically important within the Delphi survey and should be a primary focus of future retention research.

Abstract Background Gastric cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Whilst surgery is the mainstay of curative treatment, it is associated with significant risks. Surgical strategies for treating gastric cancer should be based on evidence from systematic reviews of well-designed randomised controlled trials. However, inconsistencies in the reporting of outcomes from these trials makes evidence synthesis unreliable. We present a protocol for an international consensus study to develop a standardised set of outcomes and measurement tools – a ‘core outcome set’ (COS) – to be used by all future trials examining therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer. The GASTROS study aims to standardise the reporting of outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials through an international consensus process of key stakeholders including health care professionals and patients. Methods The first of three stages in the study will identify a ‘long-list’ of potentially important outcomes to be prioritised. These will be extracted from a systematic review of relevant academic literature and patient interviews. Stage 2 will comprise an eDelphi survey which will consider the views of patients, nurse specialists and surgeons to prioritise the most important outcomes. A meeting of stakeholder representatives will ratify the COS. Stage 3 will focus on identifying appropriate instruments to measure the prioritised outcomes by means of quality assessment of available measurement instruments and stakeholder consultation. Discussion This study aims to standardise the reporting of outcomes in future trials examining therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer. It is anticipated that standardisation of outcome reporting in these surgical effectiveness trials will enhance the evidence base for clinical practice. Highlighting outcomes of greatest importance to patients will ensure that their perspectives are central to research in this field.

Abstract Background Demands are increasingly being made for clinical trialists to actively share individual participant data (IPD) collected from clinical trials using responsible methods that protect the confidentiality and privacy of clinical trial participants. Clinical trialists, particularly those receiving public funding, are often concerned about the additional time and money that data-sharing activities will require, but few published empirical data are available to help inform these decisions. We sought to evaluate the activity and resources required to prepare anonymised IPD from a clinical trial in anticipation of a future data-sharing request. Methods Data from two UK publicly funded clinical trials were used for this exercise: 2437 participants with epilepsy recruited from 90 hospital outpatient clinics in the SANAD trial and 146 children with neuro-developmental problems recruited from 18 hospitals in the MENDS trial. We calculated the time and resources required to prepare each anonymised dataset and assemble a data pack ready for sharing. Results The older SANAD trial (published 2007) required 50 hours of staff time with a total estimated associated cost of £3185 whilst the more recently completed MENDS trial (published 2012) required 39.5 hours of staff time with total estimated associated cost of £2540. Conclusions Clinical trial researchers, funders and sponsors should consider appropriate resourcing and allow reasonable time for preparing IPD ready for subsequent sharing. This process would be most efficient if prospectively built into the standard operational design and conduct of a clinical trial. Further empirical examples exploring the resource requirements in other settings is recommended. Trial registration SANAD: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Registry: ISRCTN38354748 . Registered on 25 April 2003. MENDS: EU Clinical Trials Register Eudract 2006-004025-28 . Registered on 16 May 2007. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Registry: ISRCTN05534585 /MREC 07/MRE08/43. Registered on 26 January 2007.