Search

Background: The most common cause of preventable death after injury is haemorrhage. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is intended to provide earlier, temporary haemorrhage control, to facilitate transfer to an operating theatre or interventional radiology suite for definitive haemostasis., Objective: To compare standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta versus standard care in patients with exsanguinating haemorrhage in the emergency department., Design: Pragmatic, multicentre, Bayesian, group-sequential, registry-enabled, open-label, parallel-group randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta, compared to standard care alone., Setting: United Kingdom Major Trauma Centres., Participants: Trauma patients aged 16 years or older with confirmed or suspected life-threatening torso haemorrhage deemed amenable to adjunctive treatment with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta., Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to: standard care, as expected in a major trauma centre standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta., Main Outcome Measures: Primary: Mortality at 90 days. Secondary: Mortality at 6 months, while in hospital, and within 24, 6 and 3 hours; need for haemorrhage control procedures, time to commencement of haemorrhage procedure, complications, length of stay (hospital and intensive care unit-free days), blood product use. Health economic: Expected United Kingdom National Health Service perspective costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years, modelled over a lifetime horizon., Data Sources: Case report forms, Trauma Audit and Research Network registry, NHS Digital (Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics data)., Results: Ninety patients were enrolled: 46 were randomised to standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta and 44 to standard care. Mortality at 90 days was higher in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group (54%) compared to the standard care group (42%). The odds ratio was 1.58 (95% credible interval 0.72 to 3.52). The posterior probability of an odds ratio > 1 (indicating increased odds of death with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta) was 86.9%. The overall effect did not change when an enthusiastic prior was used or when the estimate was adjusted for baseline characteristics. For the secondary outcomes (3, 6 and 24 hours mortality), the posterior probability that standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta was harmful was higher than for the primary outcome. Additional analyses to account for intercurrent events did not change the direction of the estimate for mortality at any time point. Death due to haemorrhage was more common in the standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta group than in the standard care group. There were no serious adverse device effects. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is less costly (probability 99%), due to the competing mortality risk but also substantially less effective in terms of lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (probability 91%)., Limitations: The size of the study reflects the relative infrequency of exsanguinating traumatic haemorrhage in the United Kingdom. There were some baseline imbalances between groups, but adjusted analyses had little effect on the estimates., Conclusions: This is the first randomised trial of the addition of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta to standard care in the management of exsanguinating haemorrhage. All the analyses suggest that a strategy of standard care plus resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is potentially harmful., Future Work: The role (if any) of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in the pre-hospital setting remains unclear. Further research to clarify its potential (or not) may be required., Trial Registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN16184981., Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/199/09) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 28, No. 54. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background: Pelvic organ prolapse is common, causes unpleasant symptoms and negatively affects women's quality of life. In the UK, most women with pelvic organ prolapse attend clinics for pessary care., Objectives: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management on prolapse-specific quality of life for women with prolapse compared with clinic-based care; and to assess intervention acceptability and contextual influences on effectiveness, adherence and fidelity., Design: A multicentre, parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial with a mixed-methods process evaluation., Participants: Women attending UK NHS outpatient pessary services, aged ≥ 18 years, using a pessary of any type/material (except shelf, Gellhorn or Cube) for at least 2 weeks. Exclusions: women with limited manual dexterity, with cognitive deficit (prohibiting consent or self-management), pregnant or non-English-speaking., Intervention: The self-management intervention involved a 30-minute teaching appointment, an information leaflet, a 2-week follow-up telephone call and a local clinic telephone helpline number. Clinic-based care involved routine appointments determined by centres' usual practice., Allocation: Remote web-based application; minimisation was by age, pessary user type and centre., Blinding: Participants, those delivering the intervention and researchers were not blinded to group allocation., Outcomes: The patient-reported primary outcome (measured using the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7) was prolapse-specific quality of life, and the cost-effectiveness outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (a specifically developed health Resource Use Questionnaire was used) at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included self-efficacy and complications. Process evaluation data were collected by interview, audio-recording and checklist. Analysis was by intention to treat., Results: Three hundred and forty women were randomised (self-management, n = 169; clinic-based care, n = 171). At 18 months post randomisation, 291 questionnaires with valid primary outcome data were available (self-management, n = 139; clinic-based care, n = 152). Baseline economic analysis was based on 264 participants (self-management, n = 125; clinic-based care, n = 139) with valid quality of life and resource use data. Self-management was an acceptable intervention. There was no group difference in prolapse-specific quality of life at 18 months (adjusted mean difference -0.03, 95% confidence interval -9.32 to 9.25). There was fidelity to intervention delivery. Self-management was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, with an estimated incremental net benefit of £564.32 and an 80.81% probability of cost-effectiveness. At 18 months, more pessary complications were reported in the clinic-based care group (adjusted mean difference 3.83, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 6.86). There was no group difference in general self-efficacy, but self-managing women were more confident in pessary self-management activities. In both groups, contextual factors impacted on adherence and effectiveness. There were no reported serious unexpected serious adverse reactions. There were 32 serious adverse events (self-management, n = 17; clinic-based care, n = 14), all unrelated to the intervention. Skew in the baseline data for the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7, the influence of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the potential effects of crossover and the lack of ethnic diversity in the recruited sample were possible limitations., Conclusions: Self-management was acceptable and cost-effective, led to fewer complications and did not improve or worsen quality of life for women with prolapse compared with clinic-based care. Future research is needed to develop a quality-of-life measure that is sensitive to the changes women desire from treatment., Study Registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN62510577., Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/82/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 28, No. 23. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background: Around 7500 people are diagnosed with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the UK annually. Recurrence following transurethral resection of bladder tumour is common, and the intensive monitoring schedule required after initial treatment has associated costs for patients and the NHS. In photodynamic diagnosis, before transurethral resection of bladder tumour, a photosensitiser that is preferentially absorbed by tumour cells is instilled intravesically. Transurethral resection of bladder tumour is then conducted under blue light, causing the photosensitiser to fluoresce. Photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour offers better diagnostic accuracy than standard white-light-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour, potentially reducing the chance of subsequent recurrence., Objective: The objective was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour., Design: This was a multicentre, pragmatic, open-label, parallel-group, non-masked, superiority randomised controlled trial. Allocation was by remote web-based service, using a 1 : 1 ratio and a minimisation algorithm balanced by centre and sex., Setting: The setting was 22 NHS hospitals., Participants: Patients aged ≥ 16 years with a suspected first diagnosis of high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, no contraindications to photodynamic diagnosis and written informed consent were eligible., Interventions: Photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour and standard white-light cystoscopy transurethral resection of bladder tumour., Main Outcome Measures: The primary clinical outcome measure was the time to recurrence from the date of randomisation to the date of pathologically proven first recurrence (or intercurrent bladder cancer death). The primary health economic outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 3 years., Results: We enrolled 538 participants from 22 UK hospitals between 11 November 2014 and 6 February 2018. Of these, 269 were allocated to photodynamic diagnosis and 269 were allocated to white light. A total of 112 participants were excluded from the analysis because of ineligibility ( n  = 5), lack of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer diagnosis following transurethral resection of bladder tumour ( n  = 89) or early cystectomy ( n  = 18). In total, 209 photodynamic diagnosis and 217 white-light participants were included in the clinical end-point analysis population. All randomised participants were included in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Over a median follow-up period of 21 months for the photodynamic diagnosis group and 22 months for the white-light group, there were 86 recurrences (3-year recurrence-free survival rate 57.8%, 95% confidence interval 50.7% to 64.2%) in the photodynamic diagnosis group and 84 recurrences (3-year recurrence-free survival rate 61.6%, 95% confidence interval 54.7% to 67.8%) in the white-light group (hazard ratio 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 1.28; p  = 0.70). Adverse event frequency was low and similar in both groups [12 (5.7%) in the photodynamic diagnosis group vs. 12 (5.5%) in the white-light group]. At 3 years, the total cost was £12,881 for photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour and £12,005 for white light. There was no evidence of differences in the use of health services or total cost at 3 years. At 3 years, the quality-adjusted life-years gain was 2.094 in the photodynamic diagnosis transurethral resection of bladder tumour group and 2.087 in the white light group. The probability that photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour was cost-effective was never > 30% over the range of society's cost-effectiveness thresholds., Limitations: Fewer patients than anticipated were correctly diagnosed with intermediate- to high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer before transurethral resection of bladder tumour and the ratio of intermediate- to high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer was higher than expected, reducing the number of observed recurrences and the statistical power., Conclusions: Photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour did not reduce recurrences, nor was it likely to be cost-effective compared with white light at 3 years. Photodynamic diagnosis-guided transurethral resection of bladder tumour is not supported in the management of primary intermediate- to high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer., Future Work: Further work should include the modelling of appropriate surveillance schedules and exploring predictive and prognostic biomarkers., Trial Registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN84013636., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 26, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: The diagnosis of preterm labour is challenging. False-positive diagnoses are common and result in unnecessary, potentially harmful treatments (e.g. tocolytics, antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulphate) and costly hospital admissions. Measurement of fetal fibronectin in vaginal fluid is a biochemical test that can indicate impending preterm birth., Objectives: To develop an externally validated prognostic model using quantitative fetal fibronectin concentration, in combination with clinical risk factors, for the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth and to assess its cost-effectiveness., Design: The study comprised (1) a qualitative study to establish the decisional needs of pregnant women and their caregivers, (2) an individual participant data meta-analysis of existing studies to develop a prognostic model for spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days in women with symptoms of preterm labour based on quantitative fetal fibronectin and clinical risk factors, (3) external validation of the prognostic model in a prospective cohort study across 26 UK centres, (4) a model-based economic evaluation comparing the prognostic model with qualitative fetal fibronectin, and quantitative fetal fibronectin with cervical length measurement, in terms of cost per QALY gained and (5) a qualitative assessment of the acceptability of quantitative fetal fibronectin., Data Sources/setting: The model was developed using data from five European prospective cohort studies of quantitative fetal fibronectin. The UK prospective cohort study was carried out across 26 UK centres., Participants: Pregnant women at 22 +0 -34 +6 weeks' gestation with signs and symptoms of preterm labour., Health Technology Being Assessed: Quantitative fetal fibronectin., Main Outcome Measures: Spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days., Results: The individual participant data meta-analysis included 1783 women and 139 events of spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days (event rate 7.8%). The prognostic model that was developed included quantitative fetal fibronectin, smoking, ethnicity, nulliparity and multiple pregnancy. The model was externally validated in a cohort of 2837 women, with 83 events of spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days (event rate 2.93%), an area under the curve of 0.89 (95% confidence interval 0.84 to 0.93), a calibration slope of 1.22 and a Nagelkerke R 2 of 0.34. The economic analysis found that the prognostic model was cost-effective compared with using qualitative fetal fibronectin at a threshold for hospital admission and treatment of ≥ 2% risk of preterm birth within 7 days., Limitations: The outcome proportion (spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days of test) was 2.9% in the validation study. This is in line with other studies, but having slightly fewer than 100 events is a limitation in model validation., Conclusions: A prognostic model that included quantitative fetal fibronectin and clinical risk factors showed excellent performance in the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days of test, was cost-effective and can be used to inform a decision support tool to help guide management decisions for women with threatened preterm labour., Future Work: The prognostic model will be embedded in electronic maternity records and a mobile telephone application, enabling ongoing data collection for further refinement and validation of the model., Study Registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015027590 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41598423., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 25, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: New surgical approaches for apical prolapse have gradually been introduced, with few prospective randomised controlled trial data to evaluate their safety and efficacy compared with traditional methods., Objective: To compare surgical uterine preservation with vaginal hysterectomy in women with uterine prolapse and abdominal procedures with vaginal procedures in women with vault prolapse in terms of clinical effectiveness, adverse events, quality of life and cost-effectiveness., Design: Two parallel randomised controlled trials (i.e. Uterine and Vault). Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio), minimised on the need for concomitant anterior and/or posterior procedure, concomitant incontinence procedure, age and surgeon., Setting: UK hospitals., Participants: Uterine trial - 563 out of 565 randomised women had uterine prolapse surgery. Vault trial - 208 out of 209 randomised women had vault prolapse surgery., Interventions: Uterine trial - uterine preservation or vaginal hysterectomy. Vault trial - abdominal or vaginal vault suspension., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measures were women's prolapse symptoms (as measured using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score), prolapse-specific quality of life and cost-effectiveness (as assessed by incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year)., Results: Uterine trial - adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, the mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score at 12 months for uterine preservation was 4.2 (standard deviation 4.9) versus vaginal hysterectomy with a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score of 4.2 (standard deviation 5.3) (mean difference -0.05, 95% confidence interval -0.91 to 0.81). Serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups (uterine preservation 5.4% vs. vaginal hysterectomy 5.9%; risk ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.38 to 1.75). There was no difference in overall prolapse stage. Significantly more women would recommend vaginal hysterectomy to a friend (odds ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.83). Uterine preservation was £235 (95% confidence interval £6 to £464) more expensive than vaginal hysterectomy and generated non-significantly fewer quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference -0.004, 95% confidence interval -0.026 to 0.019). Vault trial - adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, the mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score at 12 months for an abdominal procedure was 5.6 (standard deviation 5.4) versus vaginal procedure with a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score of 5.9 (standard deviation 5.4) (mean difference -0.61, 95% confidence interval -2.08 to 0.86). The serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups (abdominal 5.9% vs. vaginal 6.0%; risk ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 3.44). The objective anterior prolapse stage 2b or more was higher in the vaginal group than in the abdominal group (odds ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.79). There was no difference in the overall prolapse stage. An abdominal procedure was £570 (95% confidence interval £459 to £682) more expensive than a vaginal procedure and generated non-significantly more quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference 0.004, 95% confidence interval -0.031 to 0.041)., Conclusions: Uterine trial - in terms of efficacy, quality of life or adverse events in the short term, no difference was identified between uterine preservation and vaginal hysterectomy. Vault trial - in terms of efficacy, quality of life or adverse events in the short term, no difference was identified between an abdominal and a vaginal approach., Future Work: Long-term follow-up for at least 6 years is ongoing to identify recurrence rates, need for further prolapse surgery, adverse events and cost-effectiveness., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86784244., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 24, No. 13. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information., Competing Interests: Robert Freeman reports speaker fees [from Bard Medical (Covington, GA, USA), Astellas Pharma Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) and Pfizer Inc. (New York City, NY, USA)] and grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme. John Norrie reports membership of the following NIHR boards: the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Decision-making Committee, HTA Commissioning Board, HTA Commissioning Sub-Board (Expression of Interest), HTA Funding Boards Policy Group, HTA General Board and HTA Post-board Funding Teleconference; the NIHR Clinical Trials Unit Standing Advisory Committee; the NIHR HTA and Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Editorial Board; and the Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Impact Review Panel.

Background: Retained placenta is associated with postpartum haemorrhage and can lead to significant maternal morbidity if untreated. The only effective treatment is the surgical procedure of manual removal of placenta, which is costly, requires skilled staff, requires an operative environment and is unpleasant for women. Small studies suggest that glyceryl trinitrate may be an effective medical alternative., Objective: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sublingual glyceryl trinitrate spray compared with placebo in reducing the need for manual removal of placenta in women with retained placenta after vaginal delivery following the failure of current management., Design: A group-sequential randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial with a cost-effectiveness analysis., Setting: There were 29 obstetric units in the UK involved in the study., Participants: There were 1107 women (glyceryl trinitrate group, n  = 543; placebo group, n  = 564) randomised between October 2014 and July 2017., Interventions: Glyceryl trinitrate spray was administered to 541 women in the intervention group, and a placebo was administered to 563 women in the control group., Main Outcome Measures: Four primary outcomes were defined: (1) clinical - the need for manual removal of placenta, (2) safety - measured blood loss, (3) patient sided - satisfaction with treatment and side effects and (4) economic - cost-effectiveness of both treatments using the UK NHS perspective. Secondary clinical outcomes included a > 15% decrease in haemoglobin level, time from randomisation to delivery of placenta in theatre, the need for earlier manual removal of placenta than planned, increase in heart rate or decrease in blood pressure, requirement for blood transfusion, requirement for general anaesthesia, maternal pyrexia, and sustained uterine relaxation requiring additional uterotonics., Results: No difference was observed between the glyceryl trinitrate group and the control group for the placenta remaining undelivered within 15 minutes of study treatment (93.3% vs. 92%; odds ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.04; p  = 0.393). There was no difference in blood loss of > 1000 ml between the glyceryl trinitrate group and the control group (22.2% vs. 15.5%; odds ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.48; p  = 0.314). Palpitations were more common in the glyceryl trinitrate group than in the control group after taking the study drug (9.8% vs. 4.0%; odds ratio 2.60, 95% confidence interval 1.40 to 4.84; p  = 0.003). There was no difference in any other measures of patient satisfaction between the groups. There was no difference in costs to the health service between groups (mean difference £55.30, 95% confidence interval -£199.20 to £309.79). Secondary outcomes revealed that a fall in systolic or diastolic blood pressure, or an increase in heart rate, was more common in the glyceryl trinitrate group than in the control group (odds ratio 4.9, 95% confidence interval 3.7 to 6.4; p  < 0.001). The need for a blood transfusion was also more common in the glyceryl trinitrate group than in the control group (odds ratio 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 2.25; p  = 0.033)., Conclusions: Glyceryl trinitrate spray did not increase the delivery of retained placenta within 15 minutes of administration when compared with the placebo, and was not cost-effective for medical management of retained placenta. More participants reported palpitations and required a blood transfusion in the glyceryl trinitrate group. Further research into alternative methods of medical management of retained placenta is required., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN88609453., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 23, No. 70. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information., Competing Interests: Fiona C Denison has received funding from Dilafor AB (Solna, Sweden) outside the submitted work. Jane E Norman has received funding from Dilafor AB and GlaxoSmithKline plc (Middlesex, UK) outside the submitted work and declares membership of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Maternal Newborn and Child Health Panel. Jane Norman was a member of the HTA and Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Editorial Board. John Norrie declares grants from the University of Aberdeen and the University of Edinburgh during the conduct of the study and membership of the following NIHR boards: Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Decision-making Committee, HTA Commissioning Board, HTA Commissioning Sub-Board (Expression of Interest), HTA Funding Boards Policy Group, HTA General Board, HTA post-board funding teleconference, NIHR Clinical Trials Unit Standing Advisory Committee, NIHR HTA and EME Editorial Board and Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Impact Review Panel. Julia Lawton declares membership of the HTA General Board.

Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem that affects many British women. When initial medical treatment is unsuccessful, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends surgical options such as endometrial ablation (EA) or hysterectomy. Although clinically and economically more effective than EA, total hysterectomy necessitates a longer hospital stay and is associated with slower recovery and a higher risk of complications. Improvements in endoscopic equipment and training have made laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) accessible to most gynaecologists. This operation could preserve the advantages of total hysterectomy and reduce the risk of complications., Objectives: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LASH with second-generation EA in women with HMB., Design: A parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio). Surgeons and participants were not blinded to the allocated procedure., Setting: Thirty-one UK secondary and tertiary hospitals., Participants: Women aged < 50 years with HMB. Exclusion criteria included plans to conceive; endometrial atypia; abnormal cytology; uterine cavity size > 11 cm; any fibroids > 3 cm; contraindications to laparoscopic surgery; previous EA; and inability to give informed consent or complete trial paperwork., Interventions: LASH compared with second-generation EA., Main Outcome Measures: Co-primary clinical outcome measures were (1) patient satisfaction and (2) Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Quality-of-Life Scale (MMAS) score at 15 months post randomisation. The primary economic outcome was incremental cost (NHS perspective) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained., Results: A total of 330 participants were randomised to each group (total n  = 660). Women randomised to LASH were more likely to be satisfied with their treatment than those randomised to EA (97.1% vs. 87.1%) [adjusted difference in proportions 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.15; adjusted odds ratio (OR) from ordinal logistic regression (OLR) 2.53, 95% CI 1.83 to 3.48; p  < 0.001]. Women randomised to LASH were also more likely to have the best possible MMAS score of 100 (68.7% vs. 54.5%) (adjusted difference in proportions 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.23; adjusted OR from OLR 1.87, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.67; p  = 0.001). Serious adverse event rates were low and similar in both groups (4.5% vs. 3.6%). There was a significant difference in adjusted mean costs between LASH (£2886) and EA (£1282) at 15 months, but no significant difference in QALYs. Based on an extrapolation of expected differences in cost and QALYs out to 10 years, LASH cost an additional £1362 for an average QALY gain of 0.11, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,314 per QALY. Probabilities of cost-effectiveness were 53%, 71% and 80% at cost-effectiveness thresholds of £13,000, £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY gained, respectively., Limitations: Follow-up data beyond 15 months post randomisation are not available to inform cost-effectiveness., Conclusion: LASH is superior to EA in terms of clinical effectiveness. EA is less costly in the short term, but expected higher retreatment rates mean that LASH could be considered cost-effective by 10 years post procedure., Future Work: Retreatment rates, satisfaction and quality-of-life scores at 10-year follow-up will help to inform long-term cost-effectiveness., Triai Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49013893., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 23, No. 53. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information., Competing Interests: T Justin Clark reports grants and personal fees from Hologic Inc. (Santa Clara, CA, USA), outside the submitted work, and membership of the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Prioritisation Committee. John Norrie declares grants from the University of Aberdeen and the University of Edinburgh during the conduct of the study, and membership of the following National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) boards: HTA Commissioning Board (2010–16); NIHR HTA and Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Editorial Board (2014–19); HTA Commissioning Sub-board (Expression of Interest) (2016–present); HTA Funding Boards Policy Group (2016–present); HTA General Board (2016–present); HTA Post-board Funding Teleconference (2016–present); the Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Impact Review Panel (2018); and the NIHR Clinical Trials Unit Standing Advisory Committee (2018–present). Siladitya Bhattacharya is the Editor-in-Chief of HROpen and an Editor for Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility.

Background: Despite widespread use of therapies such as inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) continue to suffer, have reduced life expectancy and utilise considerable NHS resources. Laboratory investigations have demonstrated that at low plasma concentrations (1-5 mg/l) theophylline markedly enhances the anti-inflammatory effects of corticosteroids in COPD., Objective: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding low-dose theophylline to a drug regimen containing ICSs in people with COPD at high risk of exacerbation., Design: A multicentre, pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial., Setting: The trial was conducted in 121 UK primary and secondary care sites., Participants: People with COPD [i.e. who have a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1 )/forced vital capacity (FVC) of < 0.7] currently on a drug regimen including ICSs with a history of two or more exacerbations treated with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids (OCSs) in the previous year., Interventions: Participants were randomised (1 : 1) to receive either low-dose theophylline or placebo for 1 year. The dose of theophylline (200 mg once or twice a day) was determined by ideal body weight and smoking status., Primary Outcome: The number of participant-reported exacerbations in the 1-year treatment period that were treated with antibiotics and/or OCSs., Results: A total of 1578 people were randomised (60% from primary care): 791 to theophylline and 787 to placebo. There were 11 post-randomisation exclusions. Trial medication was prescribed to 1567 participants: 788 in the theophylline arm and 779 in the placebo arm. Participants in the trial arms were well balanced in terms of characteristics. The mean age was 68.4 [standard deviation (SD) 8.4] years, 54% were male, 32% smoked and mean FEV 1 was 51.7% (SD 20.0%) predicted. Primary outcome data were available for 98% of participants: 772 in the theophylline arm and 764 in the placebo arm. There were 1489 person-years of follow-up data. The mean number of exacerbations was 2.24 (SD 1.99) for participants allocated to theophylline and 2.23 (SD 1.97) for participants allocated to placebo [adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.08]. Low-dose theophylline had no significant effects on lung function (i.e. FEV 1 ), incidence of pneumonia, mortality, breathlessness or measures of quality of life or disease impact. Hospital admissions due to COPD exacerbation were less frequent with low-dose theophylline (adjusted IRR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.94). However, 39 of the 51 excess hospital admissions in the placebo group were accounted for by 10 participants having three or more exacerbations. There were no differences in the reporting of theophylline side effects between the theophylline and placebo arms., Limitations: A higher than expected percentage of participants (26%) ceased trial medication; this was balanced between the theophylline and placebo arms and mitigated by over-recruitment ( n  = 154 additional participants were recruited) and the high rate of follow-up. The limitation of not using documented exacerbations is addressed by evidence that patient recall is highly reliable and the results of a small within-trial validation study., Conclusion: For people with COPD at high risk of exacerbation, the addition of low-dose oral theophylline to a drug regimen that includes ICSs confers no overall clinical or health economic benefit. This result was evident from the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses., Future Work: To promote consideration of the findings of this trial in national and international COPD guidelines., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27066620., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 23, No. 37. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information., Competing Interests: Graham Burns reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH (Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany), Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Petah Tikva, Israel), Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA (Parma, Italy), Pfizer Inc. (New York City, NY, USA) and AstraZeneca plc (Cambridge, UK), and non-financial support from Chiesi and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. Rekha Chaudhuri reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) plc (London, UK), Teva and Novartis International AG (Basel, Switzerland) for advisory board meetings, outside the submitted work. Anthony De Soyza reports grants and non-financial support from AstraZeneca and Chiesi, non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants and personal fees from GSK, Bayer AG (Leverkusen, Germany) and Pfizer, and grants from Forest Laboratories (New York City, NY, USA)/Teva, outside the submitted work. He is also a member of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Elective and Emergency Specialist Care (EESC) Panel. Simon Gompertz reports personal fees from Pfizer and GSK, outside the submitted work. John Norrie reports grants from the NIHR HTA programme during the conduct of the study, was a member of the NIHR HTA Commissioning Board (2010–16) and is currently Deputy Chairperson of the NIHR HTA General Board (2016–present) and a NIHR Journals Library Editor (2014–present). Andrew Wilson reports grants from F. Hoffmann-La Roche (Basel, Switzerland), outside the submitted work. David Price reports grants and personal fees from Aerocrine AB (Stockholm, Sweden), AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Mylan NV (Canonsburg, PA, USA), Mundipharma International Ltd (Cambridge, UK), Napp Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Cambridge, UK), Novartis, Pfizer, Teva, Theravance Biopharma (San Francisco, CA, USA) and Zentiva Group a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic); personal fees from Almirall SA (Barcelona, Spain), Amgen Inc. (Newbury Park, CA, USA), Cipla Ltd (Mumbai, India), GSK, Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Kenilworth, NJ, USA), Skyepharma Production SAS (Saint-Quentin-Fallavier, France); grants from AKL Research and Development Ltd (Stevenage, UK), the British Lung Foundation, the Respiratory Effectiveness Group and the UK NHS; and non-financial support from the NIHR Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation and HTA programmes, outside the submitted work. He also reports stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd, which produces phytopharmaceuticals and owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd (Cambridge, UK, and Australia and Singapore) and 74% of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (Singapore).

Background: Clozapine (clozaril, Mylan Products Ltd) is a first-choice treatment for people with schizophrenia who have a poor response to standard antipsychotic medication. However, a significant number of patients who trial clozapine have an inadequate response and experience persistent symptoms, called clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (CRS). There is little evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of pharmacological or psychological interventions for this population., Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for people with CRS and to identify factors predicting outcome., Design: The Focusing on Clozapine Unresponsive Symptoms (FOCUS) trial was a parallel-group, randomised, outcome-blinded evaluation trial. Randomisation was undertaken using permuted blocks of random size via a web-based platform. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis, using random-effects regression adjusted for site, age, sex and baseline symptoms. Cost-effectiveness analyses were carried out to determine whether or not CBT was associated with a greater number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and higher costs than treatment as usual (TAU)., Setting: Secondary care mental health services in five cities in the UK., Participants: People with CRS aged ≥ 16 years, with an International Classification of Diseases , Tenth Revision (ICD-10) schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses and who are experiencing psychotic symptoms., Interventions: Individual CBT included up to 30 hours of therapy delivered over 9 months. The comparator was TAU, which included care co-ordination from secondary care mental health services., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at 21 months and the primary secondary outcome was PANSS total score at the end of treatment (9 months post randomisation). The health benefit measure for the economic evaluation was the QALY, estimated from the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L), health status measure. Service use was measured to estimate costs., Results: Participants were allocated to CBT ( n  = 242) or TAU ( n  = 245). There was no significant difference between groups on the prespecified primary outcome [PANSS total score at 21 months was 0.89 points lower in the CBT arm than in the TAU arm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.32 to 1.55 points; p  = 0.475], although PANSS total score at the end of treatment (9 months) was significantly lower in the CBT arm (-2.40 points, 95% CI -4.79 to -0.02 points; p  = 0.049). CBT was associated with a net cost of £5378 (95% CI -£13,010 to £23,766) and a net QALY gain of 0.052 (95% CI 0.003 to 0.103 QALYs) compared with TAU. The cost-effectiveness acceptability analysis indicated a low likelihood that CBT was cost-effective, in the primary and sensitivity analyses (probability < 50%). In the CBT arm, 107 participants reported at least one adverse event (AE), whereas 104 participants in the TAU arm reported at least one AE (odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.46; p  = 0.58)., Conclusions: Cognitive-behavioural therapy for CRS was not superior to TAU on the primary outcome of total PANSS symptoms at 21 months, but was superior on total PANSS symptoms at 9 months (end of treatment). CBT was not found to be cost-effective in comparison with TAU. There was no suggestion that the addition of CBT to TAU caused adverse effects. Future work could investigate whether or not specific therapeutic techniques of CBT have value for some CRS individuals, how to identify those who may benefit and how to ensure that effects on symptoms can be sustained., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN99672552., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 23, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information., Competing Interests: Anthony P Morrison reports personal fees from the provision of training workshops in cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) for psychosis and royalties from books on the topic, outside the submitted work. Andrew Gumley reports grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme (grant number 13/15/04) outside the submitted work. Douglas Turkington reports personal fees from Insight–CBT partnership (Insight Healthcare, Newcastle upon Tyne), outside the submitted work. Gemma Shields reports grants from NIHR during the conduct of the study. Graeme MacLennan reports grants from the NIHR HTA programme during the conduct of the study. Hamish J MacLeod reports that he occasionally provides CBT for psychosis workshops and receives fees for this work. John Norrie reports personal fees from the NIHR Editors Board and grants from NIHR HTA General Board Deputy Chairperson, outside the submitted work, and has membership of the HTA Funding Boards Policy Group and Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Impact Review Panel. Linda Davies reports grants from the NIHR HTA programme during the conduct of the study. Paul French has membership of the HTA prioritisation Panel. Paul Hutton reports that he sits on an Expert Steering Group for Professor Jill Stavert’s Centre for Mental Health and Incapacity Law Rights and Policy at Edinburgh Napier University, and that he is a member of a committee developing National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on supporting decision-making for people who may lack mental capacity. Robert Dudley reports receiving a NIHR Comprehensive Local Research Network Greenshoots award to fund time to support his contribution to the FOCUS (Focusing on Clozapine Unresponsive Symptoms) trial, royalties from Guilford Press and personal fees from Trinity College Dublin, outside the submitted work. Samantha Bowe reports personal fees from Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust and personal fees from Cheshire & Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, outside the submitted work. Thomas RE Barnes reports personal fees from Sunovion (Marlborough, MA, USA) and Otsuka (Tokyo, Japan)/Lundbeck (Copenhagen, Denmark), outside the submitted work.

Background: Between 50% and 80% of people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) experience neurogenic bowel dysfunction (NBD) (i.e. constipation and faecal incontinence) that affects quality of life and can lead to hospitalisation., Objectives: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of abdominal massage plus advice on bowel symptoms on PwMS compared with advice only. A process evaluation investigated the factors that affected the clinical effectiveness and possible implementation of the different treatments., Design: A randomised controlled trial with process evaluation and health economic components. Outcome analysis was undertaken blind., Setting: The trial took place in 12 UK hospitals., Participants: PwMS who had 'bothersome' NBD., Intervention: Following individualised training, abdominal massage was undertaken daily for 6 weeks (intervention group). Advice on good bowel management as per the Multiple Sclerosis Society advice booklet was provided to both groups. All participants received weekly telephone calls from the research nurse., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the difference between the intervention and control groups in change in the NBD score from baseline to week 24. Secondary outcomes were measured via a bowel diary, adherence diary, the Constipation Scoring System, patient resource questionnaire and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L)., Results: A total of 191 participants were finalised, 189 of whom were randomised (two participants were finalised in error) (control group, n  = 99; intervention group, n  = 90) and an intention-to-treat analysis was performed. The mean age was 52 years (standard deviation 10.83 years), 81% ( n  = 154) were female and 11% ( n  = 21) were wheelchair dependent. Fifteen participants from the intervention group and five from the control group were lost to follow-up. The change in NBD score by week 24 demonstrated no significant difference between groups [mean difference total score -1.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.32 to 0.04; p  = 0.0558]; there was a significant difference between groups in the change in the frequency of stool evacuation per week (mean difference 0.62, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.21; p  = 0.039) and in the number of times per week that participants felt that they emptied their bowels completely (mean difference 1.08, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.76; p  = 0.002), in favour of the intervention group. Of participant interviewees, 75% reported benefits, for example less difficulty passing stool, more complete evacuations, less bloated, improved appetite, and 85% continued with the massage. A cost-utility analysis conducted from a NHS and patient cost perspective found in the imputed sample with bootstrapping a mean incremental outcome effect of the intervention relative to usual care of -0.002 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (95% CI -0.029 to 0.027 QALYs). In the same imputed sample with bootstrapping, the mean incremental cost effect of the intervention relative to usual care was £56.50 (95% CI -£372.62 to £415.68). No adverse events were reported. Limitations include unequal randomisation, dropout and the possibility of ineffective massage technique., Conclusion: The increment in the primary outcome favoured the intervention group, but it was small and not statistically significant. The economic analysis identified that the intervention was dominated by the control group. Given the small improvement in the primary outcome, but not in terms of QALYs, a low-cost version of the intervention might be considered worthwhile by some patients., Future Work: Research is required to establish possible mechanisms of action and modes of massage delivery., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN85007023 and NCT03166007., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 22, No. 58. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information., Competing Interests: Maureen Coggrave reports personal fees from Hollister Incorporated (Libertyville, IL, USA) and Wellspect HealthCare (Weybridge, UK), both outside this study. John Norrie was a member of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Commissioning Board from 2010 to 2016, is currently an editor on the NIHR Journals Editorial Board and is Deputy Chairperson of the NIHR Health Technology Assessment General Board. Peter Donnan reports grants from Shire plc (Dublin, Ireland), Novo Nordisk A/S (Bagsværd, Denmark), GlaxoSmithKline plc (London, UK), AstraZeneca plc (Cambridge, UK) and Gilead Sciences Inc. (Foster City, CA, USA), outside this study. He is also a member of the New Drugs Committee of the Scottish Medicines Consortium.

Background: Periodontal disease is preventable but remains the most common oral disease worldwide, with major health and economic implications. Stakeholders lack reliable evidence of the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different types of oral hygiene advice (OHA) and the optimal frequency of periodontal instrumentation (PI)., Objectives: To test clinical effectiveness and assess the economic value of the following strategies: personalised OHA versus routine OHA, 12-monthly PI (scale and polish) compared with 6-monthly PI, and no PI compared with 6-monthly PI., Design: Multicentre, pragmatic split-plot, randomised open trial with a cluster factorial design and blinded outcome evaluation with 3 years' follow-up and a within-trial cost-benefit analysis. NHS and participant costs were combined with benefits [willingness to pay (WTP)] estimated from a discrete choice experiment (DCE)., Setting: UK dental practices., Participants: Adult dentate NHS patients, regular attenders, with Basic Periodontal Examination (BPE) scores of 0, 1, 2 or 3., Intervention: Practices were randomised to provide routine or personalised OHA. Within each practice, participants were randomised to the following groups: no PI, 12-monthly PI or 6-monthly PI (current practice)., Main Outcome Measures: Clinical - gingival inflammation/bleeding on probing at the gingival margin (3 years). Patient - oral hygiene self-efficacy (3 years). Economic - net benefits (mean WTP minus mean costs)., Results: A total of 63 dental practices and 1877 participants were recruited. The mean number of teeth and percentage of bleeding sites was 24 and 33%, respectively. Two-thirds of participants had BPE scores of ≤ 2. Under intention-to-treat analysis, there was no evidence of a difference in gingival inflammation/bleeding between the 6-monthly PI group and the no-PI group [difference 0.87%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.6% to 3.3%; p  = 0.481] or between the 6-monthly PI group and the 12-monthly PI group (difference 0.11%, 95% CI -2.3% to 2.5%; p  = 0.929). There was also no evidence of a difference between personalised and routine OHA (difference -2.5%, 95% CI -8.3% to 3.3%; p  = 0.393). There was no evidence of a difference in self-efficacy between the 6-monthly PI group and the no-PI group (difference -0.028, 95% CI -0.119 to 0.063; p  = 0.543) and no evidence of a clinically important difference between the 6-monthly PI group and the 12-monthly PI group (difference -0.097, 95% CI -0.188 to -0.006; p  = 0.037). Compared with standard care, no PI with personalised OHA had the greatest cost savings: NHS perspective -£15 (95% CI -£34 to £4) and participant perspective -£64 (95% CI -£112 to -£16). The DCE shows that the general population value these services greatly. Personalised OHA with 6-monthly PI had the greatest incremental net benefit [£48 (95% CI £22 to £74)]. Sensitivity analyses did not change conclusions., Limitations: Being a pragmatic trial, we did not deny PIs to the no-PI group; there was clear separation in the mean number of PIs between groups., Conclusions: There was no additional benefit from scheduling 6-monthly or 12-monthly PIs over not providing this treatment unless desired or recommended, and no difference between OHA delivery for gingival inflammation/bleeding and patient-centred outcomes. However, participants valued, and were willing to pay for, both interventions, with greater financial value placed on PI than on OHA., Future Work: Assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of providing multifaceted periodontal care packages in primary dental care for those with periodontitis., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56465715., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 22, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information., Competing Interests: Jan E Clarkson reports grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme during the conduct of the study. Alison M McDonald reports grants from the NIHR HTA programme during the conduct of the study. John DT Norrie reports grants from the University of Aberdeen and grants from the University of Glasgow outside the submitted work. He was a member of the NIHR HTA Commissioning Board (2010–16), is currently a member of the NIHR Editorial Board (2015–present) and is currently the deputy chairperson of the NIHR HTA General Board (2016–present). Marjon van der Pol reports grants from the NIHR HTA programme during the conduct of the study.

Background: Progesterone prophylaxis is widely used to prevent preterm birth but is not licensed and there is little information on long-term outcome., Objective: To determine the effect of progesterone prophylaxis in women at high risk of preterm birth on obstetric, neonatal and childhood outcomes., Design: Double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial., Setting: Obstetric units in the UK and Europe between February 2009 and April 2013., Participants: Women with a singleton pregnancy who are at high risk of preterm birth because of either a positive fibronectin test or a negative fibronectin test, and either previous spontaneous birth at ≤ 34 weeks +0 of gestation or a cervical length of ≤ 25 mm., Interventions: Fibronectin test at 18 +0 to 23 +0 weeks of pregnancy to determine risk of preterm birth. Eligible women were allocated (using a web-based randomisation portal) to 200 mg of progesterone or placebo, taken vaginally daily from 22 +0 to 24 +0 until 34 +0 weeks' gestation. Participants, caregivers and those assessing the outcomes were blinded to group assignment until data collection was complete., Main Outcome Measures: There were three primary outcomes, as follows: (1) obstetric - fetal death or delivery before 34 +0 weeks' gestation; (2) neonatal - a composite of death, brain injury on ultrasound scan (according to specific criteria in the protocol) and bronchopulmonary dysplasia; and (3) childhood - the Bayley-III cognitive composite score at 22-26 months of age., Results: In total, 96 out of 600 (16%) women in the progesterone group and 108 out of 597 (18%) women in the placebo group had the primary obstetric outcome [odds ratio (OR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.22]. Forty-six out of 589 (8%) babies of women in the progesterone group and 62 out of 587 (11%) babies of women in the placebo group experienced the primary neonatal outcome [OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.17]. The mean Bayley-III cognitive composite score of the children at 2 years of age was 97.3 points [standard deviation (SD) 17.9 points; n  = 430] in the progesterone group and 97.7 points (SD 17.5 points; n  = 439) in the placebo group (difference in means -0.48, 95% CI -2.77 to 1.81)., Limitations: Overall compliance with the intervention was 69%., Harms: There were no major harms, although there was a trend of more deaths from trial entry to 2 years in the progesterone group (20/600) than in the placebo group (16/598) (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.42)., Conclusions: In this study, progesterone had no significant beneficial or harmful effects on the primary obstetric, neonatal or childhood outcomes.The OPPTIMUM trial is now complete. We intend to participate in a comprehensive individual patient-level data meta-analysis examining women with a singleton pregnancy with a variety of risk factors for preterm birth., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14568373., Funding: This trial was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and managed by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) on behalf of the MRC-NIHR partnership., Competing Interests: Jane E Norman reports grants from the Medical Research Council (MRC), non-financial support from Besins Healthcare [(London, UK) in the form of donation of drugs for OPPTIMUM] during the conduct of the study, grants from other government bodies, including the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), grants from Tommy’s baby charity and activity on a Data Safety and Monitoring Committee for GlaxoSmithKline plc (GSK; GSK House, Middlesex, UK) outside the submitted work. She chaired the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline development group on preterm labour and birth (the NICE guidelines were finalised before the OPPTIMUM study data were available), provides consultancy for GSK and for Dilafor (Solna, Sweden) and is a member of the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Women and Children’s Health panel. Neil Marlow reports personal fees from Shire Plc (Dublin, Ireland), personal fees from Novartis International AG (Basel, Switzerland) and other from the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, outside the submitted work. In addition, funding was obtained from the Department of Health and Social Care’s NIHR Biomedical Research Centre’s funding scheme at University College Hospital/University College London. Claudia-Martina Messow is Consultant Statistician at the Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, which conducts and supports collaborative research in major international multicentre clinical trials, epidemiological studies and other research projects, and was funded from the MRC–NIHR Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) grant, which contributed to salary costs for this trial. Andrew Shennan reports grants from GSK and grants and non-financial support from Hologic Inc. (Marlborough, MA, USA) outside the submitted work. Philip R Bennett reports personal fees and grants from ObsEva Pharmaceuticals (Geneva, Switzerland), personal fees and grants from GSK and other from NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, outside the submitted work; In addition, he has a patent issued for microRNA markers to predict cervical shortening and preterm birth. Steven Thornton reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from GSK, grants and non-financial support from Hologic, non-financial support from Ferring Pharmaceutical (Saint-Prex, Switzerland) and other from NIHR, outside the submitted work. John Norrie reports grants from the University of Glasgow and the University of Aberdeen. From 2010 to 2016, he was a member of the NIHR Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Commissioning Board. From 2015 to date, he is a member of the NIHR Journal Editorial Library and, from 2016 to date, he is Deputy Chair of the NIHR HTA General Board.

Background: Haemorrhoids are a benign anorectal condition and are highly prevalent in the UK population. Treatments involve clinic-based procedures and surgery. The surgical procedures available include stapled haemorrhoidopexy (SH) and traditional haemorrhoidectomy (TH), and over 25,000 operations are performed for haemorrhoids annually in the UK. The disease is therefore important both to patients and to health service commissioners. Debate remains as to which of these surgical procedures is the most clinically effective and cost-effective., Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SH with that of TH., Design: A large, open two-arm parallel-group pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial involving 32 UK hospitals and a within-trial cost-benefit analysis. A discrete choice experiment was conducted to estimate benefits (willingness to pay)., Participants: Patients with grades II-IV haemorrhoids who had not previously undergone SH or TH were included in the study., Interventions: Participants were randomised to receive either SH or TH. Randomisation was minimised at 1 : 1, in accordance with baseline EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version (EQ-5D-3L) score, haemorrhoid grade, sex and centre, via an automated system., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was area under the quality-of-life curve measured using the EQ-5D-3L descriptive system over 24 months, and the primary economic outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Secondary outcomes included disease-specific quality of life, recurrence, complications, further interventions and costs., Results: Between January 2011 and August 2014, 777 patients were randomised (389 to receive SH and 388 to receive TH). There were 774 participants included in the analysis as a result of one post-randomisation exclusion in the SH arm and two in the TH arm. SH was less painful than TH in the short term. Surgical complications were similar in both arms. EQ-5D-3L score was higher for the SH arm in the first 6 weeks after surgery, but over 24 months the TH group had significantly better EQ-5D-3L scores (-0.073, 95% confidence interval -0.140 to -0.006; p  = 0.0342). Symptoms and further interventions were significantly fewer in the TH arm at 24 months. Continence was better in the TH arm and tenesmus occurred less frequently. The number of serious adverse events reported was 24 out of 337 (7.1%) for participants who received SH and 33 out of 352 (9.4%) for those who received TH. There were two deaths in the SH arm, both unrelated to the eTHoS (either Traditional Haemorrhoidectomy or Stapled haemorrhoidopexy for haemorrhoidal disease) study. Patient preference did not seem to influence the treatment difference. SH was dominated by TH as it cost more and was less effective. The net benefit for the TH arm was higher than that for the SH arm., Limitations: Neither the participants nor the assessors were masked to treatment assignment and final recruitment was slightly short of the total target of 800. There were also substantial missing follow-up data., Conclusions: While patients who received SH had less short-term pain, after 6 weeks, recurrence rates, symptoms, re-interventions and quality-of-life measures all favoured TH. In addition, TH is cheaper. As part of a tailored management plan for haemorrhoids, TH should be considered over SH as the surgical treatment of choice for haemorrhoids refractory to clinic-based interventions., Future Work: Perform an updated meta-analysis incorporating recently conducted European trials [eTHoS, HubBLe (haemorrhoidal artery ligation versus rubber band ligation for the management of symptomatic second-degree and third-degree haemorrhoids) and LingaLongo (Cost-effectiveness of New Surgical Treatments for Haemorrhoidal Disease)]., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN80061723., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 21, No. 70. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Obese men who consume alcohol are at a greatly increased risk of liver disease; those who drink > 14 units of alcohol per week have a 19-fold increased risk of dying from liver disease., Objectives: To develop an intervention to reduce alcohol consumption in obese men and to assess the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to investigate its effectiveness., Design of the Intervention: The intervention was developed using formative research, public involvement and behaviour change theory. It was organised in two phases, comprising a face-to-face session with trained laypeople (study co-ordinators) followed by a series of text messages. Participants explored how alcohol consumption contributed to weight gain, both through direct calorie consumption and through its effect on increasing food consumption, particularly of high-calorie foodstuffs. Men were encouraged to set goals to reduce their alcohol consumption and to make specific plans to do so. The comparator group received an active control in the form of a conventional alcohol brief intervention. Randomisation was carried out using the secure remote web-based system provided by the Tayside Clinical Trials Unit. Randomisation was stratified by the recruitment method and restricted using block sizes of randomly varying lengths. Members of the public were involved in the development of all study methods., Setting: Men were recruited from the community, from primary care registers and by time-space sampling (TSS). The intervention was delivered in community settings such as the participant's home, community centres and libraries., Participants: Men aged 35-64 years who had a body mass index (BMI) of > 30 kg/m 2 and who drank > 21 units of alcohol per week., Results: The screening methods successfully identified participants meeting the entry criteria. Trial recruitment was successful, with 69 men (36 from 419 approached in primary care, and 33 from 470 approached via TSS) recruited and randomised in 3 months. Of the 69 men randomised, 35 were allocated to the intervention group and 34 to the control group. The analysis was conducted on 31 participants from the intervention group and 30 from the control group. The participants covered a wide range of ages and socioeconomic statuses. The average alcohol consumption of the men recruited was 47.2 units per week, more than twice that of the entry criterion (> 21 units per week). Most (78%) engaged in binge drinking (> 8 units in a session) at least weekly. Almost all (95%) exceeded the threshold for a 19-fold increase in the risk of dying from liver disease (BMI of > 30 kg/m 2 and > 14 units of alcohol per week). Despite this, they believed that they were at low risk of harm from alcohol, possibly because they seldom suffered acute harms (e.g. hangovers) and made few visits to a general practitioner or hospital., Intervention: The intervention was delivered with high fidelity. A high follow-up rate was achieved (98%) and the outcomes for the full RCT were measured. A process evaluation showed that participants engaged with the main components of the intervention. The acceptability of the study methods was high., Conclusions: This feasibility study developed a novel intervention and evaluated all of the stages of a RCT that would test the effectiveness of the intervention. The main stages of a trial were completed successfully: recruitment, randomisation, intervention delivery, follow-up and measurement of study outcomes. Most of the men recruited drank very heavily and were also obese. This places them at a very high risk of liver disease, making them a priority for intervention., Future Work: A RCT to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55309164., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 21, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: The use of mesh in prolapse surgery is controversial, leading to a number of enquiries into its safety and efficacy., Objective: To compare synthetic non-absorbable mesh inlay, biological graft and mesh kit with a standard repair in terms of clinical effectiveness, adverse effects, quality of life (QoL), costs and cost-effectiveness., Design: Two randomised controlled trials within a comprehensive cohort (CC) study. Allocation was by a remote web-based randomisation system in a 1 :1 : 1 ratio (Primary trial) or 1 : 1 : 2 ratio (Secondary trial), and was minimised on age, type of prolapse repair planned, need for a concomitant continence procedure, need for a concomitant upper vaginal prolapse procedure and surgeon. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to randomisation; participants were unblinded if they requested the information. Surgeons were not blinded to allocated procedure., Setting: Thirty-five UK hospitals., Participants: Primary study : 2474 women in the analysis (including 1348 randomised) having primary anterior or posterior prolapse surgery. Secondary study : 398 in the analysis (including 154 randomised) having repeat anterior or posterior prolapse surgery. CC3 : 215 women having either uterine or vault prolapse repair., Interventions: Anterior or posterior repair alone, or with mesh inlay, biological graft or mesh kit., Main Outcome Measures: Prolapse symptoms [Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score (POP-SS)]; prolapse-specific QoL; cost-effectiveness [incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)]., Results: Primary trials : adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, mean POP-SS was similar for each comparison {standard 5.4 [standard deviation (SD) 5.5] vs. mesh 5.5 (SD 5.1), mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to 0.71; standard 5.5 (SD 5.6) vs. graft 5.6 (SD 5.6), MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.93 to 0.63}. Serious non-mesh adverse effects rates were similar between the groups in year 1 [standard 7.2% vs. mesh 7.8%, risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.72; standard 6.3% vs. graft 9.8%, RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.59]. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in any other outcome measure. The cumulative mesh complication rates over 2 years were 2 of 430 (0.5%) for standard repair (trial 1), 46 of 435 (10.6%) for mesh inlay and 2 of 368 (0.5%) for biological graft. The CC findings were comparable. Incremental costs were £363 (95% CI -£32 to £758) and £565 (95% CI £180 to £950) for mesh and graft vs. standard, respectively. Incremental QALYs were 0.071 (95% CI -0.004 to 0.145) and 0.039 (95% CI -0.041 to 0.120) for mesh and graft vs. standard, respectively. A Markov decision model extrapolating trial results over 5 years showed standard repair had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness, but results were surrounded by considerable uncertainty. Secondary trials : there were no statistically significant differences between the randomised groups in any outcome measure, but the sample size was too small to be conclusive. The cumulative mesh complication rates over 2 years were 7 of 52 (13.5%) for mesh inlay and 4 of 46 (8.7%) for mesh kit, with no mesh exposures for standard repair., Conclusions: In women who were having primary repairs, there was evidence of no benefit from the use of mesh inlay or biological graft compared with standard repair in terms of efficacy, QoL or adverse effects (other than mesh complications) in the short term. The Secondary trials were too small to provide conclusive results., Limitations: Women in the Primary trials included some with a previous repair in another compartment. Follow-up is vital to identify any long-term potential benefits and serious adverse effects., Future Work: Long-term follow-up to at least 6 years after surgery is ongoing to identify recurrence rates, need for further prolapse surgery, adverse effects and cost-effectiveness., Triai Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60695184., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 20, No. 95. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Reliable non-invasive diagnosis of meniscal tears is difficult. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is often used but is expensive and incidental findings are problematic. There are a number of physical examination tests for the diagnosis of meniscal tears that are simple, cheap and non-invasive., Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Thessaly test and to determine if the Thessaly test (alone or in combination with other physical tests) can obviate the need for further investigation by MRI or arthroscopy for patients with a suspected meniscal tear., Design: Single-centre prospective diagnostic accuracy study., Setting: Although the study was performed in a secondary care setting, it was designed to replicate the results that would have been achieved in a primary care setting., Participants: Two cohorts of patients were recruited: patients with knee pathology (n = 292) and a control cohort with no knee pathology (n = 75)., Main Outcome Measures: Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of the Thessaly test in determining the presence of meniscal tears., Methods: Participants were assessed by both a primary care clinician and a musculoskeletal clinician. Both clinicians performed the Thessaly test, McMurray's test, Apley's test, joint line tenderness test and took a standardised clinical history from the patient., Results: The Thessaly test had a sensitivity of 0.66, a specificity of 0.39 and a diagnostic accuracy of 54% when utilised by primary care clinicians. This compared with a sensitivity of 0.62, a specificity of 0.55 and diagnostic accuracy of 59% when used by musculoskeletal clinicians. The diagnostics accuracy of the other tests when used by primary care clinicians was 54% for McMurray's test, 53% for Apley's test, 54% for the joint line tenderness test and 55% for clinical history. For primary care clinicians, age and past history of osteoarthritis were both significant predictors of MRI diagnosis of meniscal tears. For musculoskeletal clinicians age and a positive diagnosis of meniscal tears on clinical history taking were significant predictors of MRI diagnosis. No physical tests were significant predictors of MRI diagnosis in our multivariate models. The specificity of MRI diagnosis was tested in subgroup of patients who went on to have a knee arthroscopy and was found to be low [0.53 (95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.77)], although the sensitivity was 1.0., Conclusions: The Thessaly test was no better at diagnosing meniscal tears than other established physical tests. The sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of all physical tests was too low to be of routine clinical value as an alternative to MRI. Caution needs to be exercised in the indiscriminate use of MRI scanning in the identification of meniscal tears in the diagnosis of the painful knee, due to the low specificity seen in the presence of concomitant knee pathology. Further research is required to determine the true diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of MRI for the detection of meniscal tears., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trial ISRCTN43527822., Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Background: Ureteric colic, the term used to describe the pain felt when a stone passes down the ureter from the kidney to the bladder, is a frequent reason for people to seek emergency health care. Treatment with the muscle-relaxant drugs tamsulosin hydrochloride (Petyme, TEVA UK Ltd) and nifedipine (Coracten(®), UCB Pharma Ltd) as medical expulsive therapy (MET) is increasingly being used to improve the likelihood of spontaneous stone passage and lessen the need for interventional procedures. However, there remains considerable uncertainty around the effectiveness of these drugs for routine use., Objectives: To determine whether or not treatment with either tamsulosin 400 µg or nifedipine 30 mg for up to 4 weeks increases the rate of spontaneous stone passage for people with ureteric colic compared with placebo, and whether or not it is cost-effective for the UK NHS., Design: A pragmatic, randomised controlled trial comparing two active drugs, tamsulosin and nifedipine, against placebo. Participants, clinicians and trial staff were blinded to treatment allocation. A cost-utility analysis was performed using data gathered during trial participation., Setting: Urology departments in 24 UK NHS hospitals., Participants: Adults aged between 18 and 65 years admitted as an emergency with a single ureteric stone measuring ≤ 10 mm, localised by computerised tomography, who were able to take trial medications and complete trial procedures., Interventions: Eligible participants were randomised 1 : 1 : 1 to take tamsulosin 400 µg, nifedipine 30 mg or placebo once daily for up to 4 weeks to make the following comparisons: tamsulosin or nifedipine (MET) versus placebo and tamsulosin versus nifedipine., Main Outcome Measures: The primary effectiveness outcome was the proportion of participants who spontaneously passed their stone. This was defined as the lack of need for active intervention for ureteric stones at up to 4 weeks after randomisation. This was determined from 4- and 12-week case-report forms completed by research staff, and from the 4-week participant self-reported questionnaire. The primary economic outcome was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over 12 weeks. We estimated costs from NHS sources and calculated QALYs from participant completion of the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions health status questionnaire 3-level response (EQ-5D-3L™) at baseline, 4 weeks and 12 weeks., Results: Primary outcome analysis included 97% of the 1167 participants randomised (378/391 tamsulosin, 379/387 nifedipine and 379/399 placebo participants). The proportion of participants who spontaneously passed their stone did not differ between MET and placebo [odds ratio (OR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.43; absolute difference 0.8%, 95% CI -4.1% to 5.7%] or between tamsulosin and nifedipine [OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.53; absolute difference 1%, 95% CI -4.6% to 6.6%]. There was no evidence of a difference in QALYs gained or in cost between the trial groups, which means that the use of MET would be very unlikely to be considered cost-effective. These findings were unchanged by extensive sensitivity analyses around predictors of stone passage, including sex, stone size and stone location., Conclusions: Tamsulosin and nifedipine did not increase the likelihood of stone passage over 4 weeks for people with ureteric colic, and use of these drugs is very unlikely to be cost-effective for the NHS. Further work is required to investigate the phenomenon of large, high-quality trials showing smaller effect size than meta-analysis of several small, lower-quality studies., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN69423238. European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT) number 2010-019469-26., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Foam sclerotherapy (foam) and endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) have emerged as alternative treatments to surgery for patients with varicose veins, but uncertainty exists regarding their effectiveness in the medium to longer term., Objectives: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of foam, EVLA and surgery for the treatment of varicose veins., Design: A parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) without blinding, and economic modelling evaluation., Setting: Eleven UK specialist vascular centres., Participants: Seven hundred and ninety-eight patients with primary varicose veins (foam, n = 292; surgery, n = 294; EVLA, n = 212)., Interventions: Patients were randomised between all three treatment options (eight centres) or between foam and surgery (three centres)., Primary Outcome Measures: Disease-specific [Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ)] and generic [European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), Short Form questionnaire-36 items (SF-36) physical and mental component scores] quality of life (QoL) at 6 months. Cost-effectiveness as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained., Secondary Outcome Measures: Quality of life at 6 weeks; residual varicose veins; Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS); complication rates; return to normal activity; truncal vein ablation rates; and costs., Results: The results appear generalisable in that participants' baseline characteristics (apart from a lower-than-expected proportion of females) and post-treatment improvement in outcomes were comparable with those in other RCTs. The health gain achieved in the AVVQ with foam was significantly lower than with surgery at 6 months [effect size -1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.97 to -0.50; p = 0.006], but was similar to that achieved with EVLA. The health gain in SF-36 mental component score for foam was worse than that for EVLA (effect size 1.54, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.06; p = 0.048) but similar to that for surgery. There were no differences in EQ-5D or SF-36 component scores in the surgery versus foam or surgery versus EVLA comparisons at 6 months. The trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis showed that, at 6 months, foam had the highest probability of being considered cost-effective at a ceiling willingness-to-pay ratio of £20,000 per QALY. EVLA was found to cost £26,107 per QALY gained versus foam, and was less costly and generated slightly more QALYs than surgery. Markov modelling using trial costs and the limited recurrence data available suggested that, at 5 years, EVLA had the highest probability (≈ 79%) of being cost-effective at conventional thresholds, followed by foam (≈ 17%) and surgery (≈ 5%). With regard to secondary outcomes, health gains at 6 weeks (p < 0.005) were greater for EVLA than for foam (EQ-5D, p = 0.004). There were fewer procedural complications in the EVLA group (1%) than after foam (7%) and surgery (8%) (p < 0.001). Participants returned to a wide range of behaviours more quickly following foam or EVLA than following surgery (p < 0.05). There were no differences in VCSS between the three treatments. Truncal ablation rates were higher for surgery (p < 0.001) and EVLA (p < 0.001) than for foam, and were similar for surgery and EVLA., Conclusions: Considerations of both the 6-month clinical outcomes and the estimated 5-year cost-effectiveness suggest that EVLA should be considered as the treatment of choice for suitable patients., Future Work: Five-year trial results are currently being evaluated to compare the cost-effectiveness of foam, surgery and EVLA, and to determine the recurrence rates following each treatment. This trial has highlighted the need for long-term outcome data from RCTs on QoL, recurrence rates and costs for foam sclerotherapy and other endovenous techniques compared against each other and against surgery., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN51995477., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: The randomised controlled trial (RCT) is widely considered to be the gold standard study for comparing the effectiveness of health interventions. Central to the design and validity of a RCT is a calculation of the number of participants needed (the sample size). The value used to determine the sample size can be considered the 'target difference'. From both a scientific and an ethical standpoint, selecting an appropriate target difference is of crucial importance. Determination of the target difference, as opposed to statistical approaches to calculating the sample size, has been greatly neglected though a variety of approaches have been proposed the current state of the evidence is unclear., Objectives: The aim was to provide an overview of the current evidence regarding specifying the target difference in a RCT sample size calculation. The specific objectives were to conduct a systematic review of methods for specifying a target difference; to evaluate current practice by surveying triallists; to develop guidance on specifying the target difference in a RCT; and to identify future research needs., Design: The biomedical and social science databases searched were MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Methodology Register, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index, EconLit, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) and Scopus for in-press publications. All were searched from 1966 or the earliest date of the database coverage and searches were undertaken between November 2010 and January 2011. There were three interlinked components: (1) systematic review of methods for specifying a target difference for RCTs - a comprehensive search strategy involving an electronic literature search of biomedical and some non-biomedical databases and clinical trials textbooks was carried out; (2) identification of current trial practice using two surveys of triallists - members of the Society for Clinical Trials (SCT) were invited to complete an online survey and respondents were asked about their awareness and use of, and willingness to recommend, methods; one individual per triallist group [UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC)-registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs), Medical Research Council (MRC) UK Hubs for Trials Methodology Research and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) UK Research Design Services (RDS)] was invited to complete a survey; (3) production of a structured guidance document to aid the design of future trials - the draft guidance was developed utilising the results of the systematic review and surveys by the project steering and advisory groups., Setting: Methodological review incorporating electronic searches, review of books and guidelines, two surveys of experts (membership of an international society and UK- and Ireland-based triallists) and development of guidance., Participants: The two surveys were sent out to membership of the SCT and UK- and Ireland-based triallists., Interventions: The review focused on methods for specifying the target difference in a RCT. It was not restricted to any type of intervention or condition., Main Outcome Measures: Methods for specifying the target difference for a RCT were considered., Results: The search identified 11,485 potentially relevant studies. In total, 1434 were selected for full-text assessment and 777 were included in the review. Seven methods to specify the target difference for a RCT were identified - anchor, distribution, health economic, opinion-seeking, pilot study, review of evidence base (RoEB) and standardised effect size (SES) - each having important variations in implementation. A total of 216 of the included studies used more than one method. A total of 180 (15%) responses to the SCT survey were received, representing 13 countries. Awareness of methods ranged from 38% (n =69) for the health economic method to 90% (n =162) for the pilot study. Of the 61 surveys sent out to UK triallist groups, 34 (56%) responses were received. Awareness ranged from 97% (n =33) for the RoEB and pilot study methods to only 41% (n =14) for the distribution method. Based on the most recent trial, all bar three groups (91%, n =30) used a formal method. Guidance was developed on the use of each method and the reporting of the sample size calculation in a trial protocol and results paper., Conclusions: There is a clear need for greater use of formal methods to determine the target difference and better reporting of its specification. Raising the standard of RCT sample size calculations and the corresponding reporting of them would aid health professionals, patients, researchers and funders in judging the strength of the evidence and ensuring better use of scarce resources., Funding: The Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research Joint Methodology Research programme.