Search

Abstract Cluster randomized trials are often used to study large-scale public health interventions. In large trials, even small improvements in statistical efficiency can have profound impacts on the required sample size and cost. Location integrates many socio-demographic and environmental characteristics into a single, readily available feature. Here we show that pair matching by geographic location leads to substantial gains in statistical efficiency for 14 child health outcomes that span growth, development, and infectious disease through a re-analysis of two large-scale trials of nutritional and environmental interventions in Bangladesh and Kenya. Relative efficiencies from pair matching are ≥1.1 for all outcomes and regularly exceed 2.0, meaning an unmatched trial would need to enroll at least twice as many clusters to achieve the same level of precision as the geographically pair matched design. We also show that geographically pair matched designs enable estimation of fine-scale, spatially varying effect heterogeneity under minimal assumptions. Our results demonstrate broad, substantial benefits of geographic pair matching in large-scale, cluster randomized trials.

Abstract Biomechanics analysis of human movement has been proven useful for maintenance of health, injury prevention, and rehabilitation in both sports and clinical populations. A marker-based motion capture system is considered the gold standard method of measurement for three dimensional kinematics measurements. However, the application of markers to anatomical bony points is a time consuming process and constrained by inter-, intra-tester and session reliability issues. The emergence of novel markerless motion capture systems without the use of reflective markers is a rapidly growing field in motion analysis. However an assessment of the level of agreement of a markerless system with an established gold standard marker-based system is needed to ensure the applicability of a markerless system. An extra layer of complexity is involved as the kinematics measurements are functional responses. In this paper a new approach is proposed to generate 95% functional limits of agreement (fLoA) using the linear mixed-effects modelling framework for hierarchical study designs. This approach is attractive as it will allow practitioners to extend their use of linear mixed models to assess agreement in method comparison studies in all domains where functional responses are recorded.

Abstract Background Randomised trials are considered the gold standard in providing robust evidence on the effectiveness of interventions. However, there are relatively few initiatives to help increase public understanding of what randomised trials are and why they are important. This limits the overall acceptance of and public participation in clinical trials. The People’s Trial aims to help the public learn about randomised trials, to understand why they matter, and to be better equipped to think critically about health claims by actively involving them in all aspects of trial design. This was done by involving the public in the design, conduct, and dissemination of a randomised trial. Methods Using a reflexive approach, we describe the processes of development, conduct, and dissemination of The People’s Trial. Results Over 3000 members of the public, from 72 countries, participated in The People’s Trial. Through a series of online surveys, the public designed a trial called The Reading Trial. They chose the question the trial would try to answer and decided the components of the trial question. In December 2019, 991 participants were recruited to a trial to answer the question identified and prioritised by the public, i.e. ‘Does reading a book in bed make a difference to sleep in comparison with not reading a book in bed?’ We report the processes of The People’s Trial in seven phases, paralleling the steps of a randomised trial, i.e. question identification and prioritisation, recruitment, randomisation, trial conduct, data analysis, and sharing of findings. We describe the decisions we made, the processes we used, the challenges we encountered, and the lessons we learned. Conclusion The People’s Trial involved the public successfully in the design, conduct, and dissemination of a randomised trial demonstrating the potential for such initiatives to help the public learn about randomised trials, to understand why they matter, and to be better equipped to think critically about health claims. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04185818 . Registered on 4 December 2019

Abstract Background The best way of comparing healthcare treatments is through a randomised trial. In a randomised trial, we compare something (a treatment or intervention) to something else, often another treatment. Who gets what is decided at random, meaning everyone has an equal chance of getting any of the treatments. This means any differences found can be put down to the treatment received rather than other things, such as where people live, or health conditions they might have. The People’s Trial aimed to help the public better understand randomised trials by inviting them to design and carry out a trial. The question chosen by the public for The People’s Trial was: ‘Does reading a book in bed make a difference to sleep, in comparison to not reading a book in bed?’ This paper describes that trial, called ‘The Reading Trial’. Methods The Reading Trial was an online, randomised trial. Members of the public were invited to take part through social media campaigns. People were asked to either read a book in bed before going to sleep (intervention group) or not read a book in bed before going to sleep (control group). We asked everyone to do this for 7 days, after which they measured their sleep quality. Results During December 2019, a total of 991 people took part in The Reading Trial, half (496 (50%)) in the intervention group and half (495 (50%)) in the control group. Not everyone finished the trial: 127 (25.6%) people in the intervention group and 90 (18.18%) people in the control group. Of those providing data, 156/369 (42%) people in the intervention group felt their sleep improved, compared to 112/405 (28%) of those in the control group, a difference of 14%. When we consider how certain we are of this finding, we estimate that, in The Reading Trial, sleep improved for between 8 and 22% more people in the intervention group compared to the control group. Conclusions Reading a book in bed before going to sleep improved sleep quality, compared to not reading a book in bed. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04185818. Registered on 4 December 2019.

Hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) yield both the myeloid and lymphoid lineages of blood cells and can be reprogrammed into tumor antigen (Ag)-specific CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) to prevent tumor growth. However, the optimal approach for differentiating tumor Ag-specific CTLs from HSCs, such as HSC-CTLs, remains elusive. In the current study, we showed that a combination of genetic modification of HSCs and in vivo T cell development facilitates the generation of Ag-specific CTLs that suppressed tumor growth. Murine HSCs, which were genetically modified with chicken ovalbumin (OVA)-specific T cell receptor, were adoptively transferred into recipient mice. In the following week, mice were administered with intraperitoneal injections of an agonist α-Notch 2 antibody and cytokines (rFlt3L and rIL-7) three times. After another two weeks, mice received a subcutaneous inoculation of B16-OVA melanoma cells that express OVA as a surrogate tumor Ag, before the anti-tumor activity of HSC-derived T cells was assessed. OVA-specific CTLs developed in vivo and greatly responded to OVA Ag stimulation ex vivo. In addition, mice receiving genetically modified HSCs and in vivo priming established anti-tumor immunity, resulting in the suppression of tumor growth. These results reported in this present study provide an alternative strategy to develop protective cancer vaccines by using genetically modified HSCs.