Search

Randomised trials are a central component of all evidence-informed health care systems and the evidence coming from them helps to support health care users, health professionals and others to make more informed decisions about treatment. The evidence available to trialists to support decisions on design, conduct and reporting of randomised trials is, however, sparse. Trial Forge is an initiative that aims to increase the evidence base for trial decision-making and in doing so, to improve trial efficiency.One way to fill gaps in evidence is to run Studies Within A Trial, or SWATs. This guidance document provides a brief definition of SWATs, an explanation of why they are important and some practical 'top tips' that come from existing experience of doing SWATs. We hope the guidance will be useful to trialists, methodologists, funders, approvals agencies and others in making clear what a SWAT is, as well as what is involved in doing one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a frequent adverse effect for men undergoing prostate surgery. A large proportion (around 8% after radical prostatectomy and 2% after transurethral resection of prostate (TURP)) are left with severe disabling incontinence which adversely effects their quality of life and many are reliant on containment measures such as pads (27% and 6% respectively). Surgery is currently the only option for active management of the problem. The overwhelming majority of surgeries for persistent bothersome SUI involve artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) insertion. However, this is expensive, and necessitates manipulation of a pump to enable voiding. More recently, an alternative to AUS has been developed - a synthetic sling for men which elevates the urethra, thus treating SUI. This is thought, by some, to be less invasive, more acceptable and less expensive than AUS but clear evidence for this is lacking. The MASTER trial aims to determine whether the male synthetic sling is non-inferior to implantation of the AUS for men who have SUI after prostate surgery (for cancer or benign disease), judged primarily on clinical effectiveness but also considering relative harms and cost-effectiveness.Methods/design: Men with urodynamic stress incontinence (USI) after prostate surgery, for whom surgery is judged appropriate, are the target population. We aim to recruit men from secondary care urological centres in the UK NHS who carry out surgery for post-prostatectomy incontinence. Outcomes will be assessed by participant-completed questionnaires and 3-day urinary bladder diaries at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months. The 24-h urinary pad test will be used at baseline as an objective assessment of urine loss. Clinical data will be completed at the time of surgery to provide details of the operative procedures, complications and resource use in hospital. At 12 months, men will also have a clinical review to evaluate the results of surgery (including another 24-h pad test) and to identify problems or need for further treatment.Discussion: A robust examination of the comparative effectiveness of the male synthetic sling will provide high-quality evidence to determine whether or not it should be adopted widely in the NHS.Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry: Number ISRCTN49212975 . Registered on 22 July 2013. First patient randomised on 29 January 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To develop a core outcome set ( COS) applicable for effectiveness trials of all interventions for localised prostate cancer. Many treatments exist for localised prostate cancer, although it is unclear which offers the optimal therapeutic ratio; which is confounded by inconsistencies in the selection, definition, measurement and reporting of outcomes in clinical trials. Patients, Subjects and Methods A list of 79 outcomes was derived from a systematic review of published localised prostate cancer effectiveness studies and semi-structured interviews with 15 patients with prostate cancer patients. A two-stage consensus process involving 118 patients and 56 international healthcare professionals ( HCPs; cancer specialist nurses, urological surgeons and oncologists) was undertaken, consisting of a three-round Delphi survey followed by a face-to-face consensus panel meeting of 13 HCPs and eight patients. Results The final COS included 19 outcomes. In all, 12 apply to all interventions: death from prostate cancer, death from any cause, local disease recurrence, distant disease recurrence/metastases, disease progression, need for salvage therapy, overall quality of life, stress urinary incontinence, urinary function, bowel function, faecal incontinence, and sexual function. Seven were intervention-specific: perioperative deaths (surgery), positive surgical margin (surgery), thromboembolic disease (surgery), bothersome or symptomatic urethral or anastomotic stricture (surgery), need for curative treatment (active surveillance), treatment failure (ablative therapy), and side-effects of hormonal therapy (hormone therapy). The UK-centric participants may limit the generalisability to other countries, but trialists should reason why the COS would not be applicable. The default position should not be that a COS developed in one country will automatically not be applicable elsewhere. Conclusion We have established a COS for trials of effectiveness in localised prostate cancer, applicable across all interventions that should be measured in all localised prostate cancer effectiveness trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Central to the design of a randomised controlled trial is the calculation of the number of participants needed. This is typically achieved by specifying a target difference and calculating the corresponding sample size, which provides reassurance that the trial will have the required statistical power (at the planned statistical significance level) to identify whether a difference of a particular magnitude exists. Beyond pure statistical or scientific concerns, it is ethically imperative that an appropriate number of participants should be recruited. Despite the critical role of the target difference for the primary outcome in the design of randomised controlled trials, its determination has received surprisingly little attention. This article provides guidance on the specification of the target difference for the primary outcome in a sample size calculation for a two parallel group randomised controlled trial with a superiority question. Methods This work was part of the DELTA (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) project. Draft guidance was developed by the project steering and advisory groups utilising the results of the systematic review and surveys. Findings were circulated and presented to members of the combined group at a face-to-face meeting, along with a proposed outline of the guidance document structure, containing recommendations and reporting items for a trial protocol and report. The guidance and was subsequently drafted and circulated for further comment before finalisation. Results Guidance on specification of a target difference in the primary outcome for a two group parallel randomised controlled trial was produced. Additionally, a list of reporting items for protocols and trial reports was generated. Conclusions Specification of the target difference for the primary outcome is a key component of a randomized controlled trial sample size calculation. There is a need for better justification of the target difference and reporting of its specification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose In randomised clinical trials (RCTs) the selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial to the assessment of whether one intervention is better than another. The purpose of this review is to identify different clinical outcomes reported in glaucoma trials. Methods We conducted a systematic review of glaucoma RCTs. A sample or selection of glaucoma trials were included bounded by a time frame (between 2006 and March 2012). Only studies in English language were considered. All clinical measured and reported outcomes were included. The possible variations of clinical outcomes were defined prior to data analysis. Information on reported clinical outcomes was tabulated and analysed using descriptive statistics. Other data recorded included type of intervention and glaucoma, duration of the study, defined primary outcomes, and outcomes used for sample size calculation, if nominated. Results The search strategy identified 4323 potentially relevant abstracts. There were 315 publications retrieved, of which 233 RCTs were included. A total of 967 clinical measures were reported. There were large variations in the definitions used to describe different outcomes and their measures. Intraocular pressure was the most commonly reported outcome (used in 201 RCTs, 86%) with a total of 422 measures (44%). Safety outcomes were commonly reported in 145 RCTs (62%) whereas visual field outcomes were used in 38 RCTs (16%). Conclusions There is a large variation in the reporting of clinical outcomes in glaucoma RCTs. This lack of standardisation may impair the ability to evaluate the evidence of glaucoma interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Interventions for dietary and physical activity changes in obese adults may be less effective for participants with additional obesity-related risk factors and co-morbidities than for otherwise healthy individuals. This study aimed to test the feasibility and acceptability of the recruitment, allocation, measurement, retention and intervention procedures of a randomised controlled trial of an intervention to improve physical activity and dietary practices amongst obese adults with additional obesity related risk factors. Method: Pilot single centre open-labelled outcome assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial of obese (Body Mass Index (BMI)≥30 kg/m2) adults (age≥18 y) with obesity related co-morbidities such as type 2 diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance or hypertension. Participants were randomly allocated to a manual-based group intervention or a leaflet control condition in accordance to a 2:1 allocation ratio. Primary outcome was acceptability and feasibility of trial procedures, secondary outcomes included measures of body composition, physical activity, food intake and psychological process measures. Results: Out of 806 potentially eligible individuals identified through list searches in two primary care general medical practices N = 81 participants (63% female; mean-age = 56.56(11.44); mean-BMI = 36.73(6.06)) with 2.35(1.47) co-morbidities were randomised. Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) was the only significant predictor of providing consent to take part in the study (higher chances of consent for invitees with lower levels of deprivation). Participant flowcharts, qualitative and quantitative feedback suggested good acceptance and feasibility of intervention procedures but 34.6% of randomised participants were lost to follow-up due to overly high measurement burden and sub-optimal retention procedures. Participants in the intervention group showed positive trends for most psychological, behavioural and body composition outcomes Conclusions: The intervention procedures were found to be acceptable and feasible. Attrition rates were unacceptably high and areas for improvements of trial procedures were identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To determine the relative benefits and risks of laparoscopic fundoplication surgery as an alternative to long term drug treatment for chronic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). Design Multicentre, pragmatic randomised trial (with parallel preference groups). Setting 21 hospitals in the United Kingdom. Participants 357 randomised participants (178 surgical, 179 medical) and 453 preference participants (261,192); mean age 46; 66% men. All participants had documented evidence of GORD and symptoms for>12 months. Intervention The type of laparoscopic fundoplication used was left to the discretion of the surgeon. Those allocated to medical treatment had their treatment reviewed and adjusted as necessary by a local gastroenterologist, and subsequent clinical management was at the discretion of the clinician responsible for care. Main outcome measures The disease specific REFLUX quality of life score (primary outcome), SF-36, EQ-5D, and medication use, measured at time points equivalent to three and 12 months after surgery, and surgical complications. Main results Randomised participants had received drugs for GORD for median of 32 months before trial entry. Baseline REFLUX scores were 63.6 (SD 24.1) and 66.8 (SD 24.5) in the surgical and medical randomised groups, respectively. Of those randomised to surgery, 111 (62%) actually had total or partial fundoplication. Surgical complications were uncommon with a conversion rate of 0.6% and no mortality. By 12 months, 38% (59/154) randomised to surgery (14% (14/104) among those who had fundoplication) were taking reflux medication versus 90% (147/164) randomised medical management. The REFLUX score favoured the randomised surgical group (14.0, 95% confidence interval 9.6 to 18.4; P<0.001). Differences of a third to half of 1 SD in other health status measures also favoured the randomised surgical group. Baseline scores in the preference for surgery group were the worst; by 12 months these were better than in the preference for medical treatment group. Conclusion At least up to 12 months after surgery, laparoscopic fundoplication significantly increased measures of health status in patients with GORD. Trial registration ISRCTN15517O81. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines the effect of daily multivitamin and multimineral supplements on morbidity from infections in older people (MAVIS trial). Design of the randomized, double blind, placebo controlled clinical trial in Grampian, Scotland; Criteria for main outcome measures of self reported days of infection, use of health services, and quality of life; Finding that routine supplementation of those living at home does not affect morbidity related to self reported infection.

Background: Traditionally, patients at low risk and high risk of developing dental disease have been encouraged to attend dental recall appointments at regular intervals of six months between appointments. The lack of evidence for the effect that different recall intervals between dental check-ups have on patient outcomes, provider workload and healthcare costs is causing considerable uncertainty for the profession and patients, despite the publication of the NICE Guideline on dental recall. The need for primary research has been highlighted in the Health Technology Assessment Group's systematic review of routine dental check-ups, which found little evidence to support or refute the practice of encouraging 6-monthly dental check-ups in adults. The more recent Cochrane review on recall interval concluded there was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions regarding the potential beneficial or harmful effects of altering the recall interval between dental check-ups. There is therefore an urgent need to assess the relative effectiveness and cost-benefit of different dental recall intervals in a robust, sufficiently powered randomised control trial (RCT) in primary dental care. Methods: This is a four year multi-centre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment based in dental primary care in the UK. Practitioners will recruit 2372 dentate adult patients. Patient participants will be randomised to one of three groups: fixed-period six month recall, risk-based recall, or fixed-period twenty-four month recall. Outcome data will be assessed through clinical examination, patient questionnaires and NHS databases. The primary outcomes measure gingival inflammation/bleeding on probing and oral health-related quality of life. Discussion: INTERVAL will provide evidence for the most clinically-effective and cost-beneficial recall interval for maintaining optimum oral health in dentate adults attending general dental practice. Trial registration: ISRCTN95933794 (Date assigned 20/08/2008). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: The publication of a wrong conclusion from a randomised trial could have disastrous consequences. Missing data are unavoidable in most studies, but ignoring the problem may introduce bias to the results. Finding an appropriate way to deal with missing data is of paramount importance. We show how the choice of analysis method can impact on the conclusion of the trial with regard to the quality of life outcomes. Methods: Various analysis strategies (analysis of covariance, linear mixed effects model) with and without imputation were carried out to assess treatment difference in four quality of life outcomes in an example clinical trial. Results: Across all four quality of life outcomes, the various analysis approaches provided different estimates of treatment difference, with varying precision, using different numbers of patients. In some cases the decision about statistical significance differed. The results suggested that where possible extra effort should be made to retrieve missing responses. In the presence of data missing at random, simple imputation was inappropriate with multiple imputation or a linear mixed effects model more useful. Conclusion: Different trial conclusions were obtained for a variety of analysis approaches for the same outcome. Collecting as much data as possible is of paramount importance. Careful consideration should be taken when deciding on the most appropriate strategy for analysis when missing data are involved and this strategy should be pre-specified in the trial protocol. Making inappropriate decisions could result in inappropriate conclusions potentially leading to the adoption of a clinical intervention in error. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy is increasingly used compared with a standard laparoscopic technique, but it remains uncertain whether potential benefits offset higher costs. Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of robotic prostatectomy. Design, setting, and participants: We conducted a care pathway description and model-based cost-utility analysis. We studied men with localised prostate cancer able to undergo either robotic or laparoscopic prostatectomy for cure. We used data from a meta-analysis, other published literature, and costs from the UK National Health Service and commercial sources. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Care received by men for 10 yr following radical prostatectomy was modelled. Clinical events, their effect on quality of life, and associated costs were synthesised assuming 200 procedures were performed annually. Results and limitations: Over 10 yr, robotic prostatectomy was on average (95% confidence interval [CI]) £1412 (€1595) (£1304 [€1473] to £1516 [€1713]) more costly than laparoscopic prostatectomy but more effective with mean (95% CI) gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 0.08 (0.01–0.15). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £18 329 (€20 708) with an 80% probability that robotic prostatectomy was cost effective at a threshold of £30 000 (€33 894)/QALY. The ICER was sensitive to the throughput of cases and the relative positive margin rate favouring robotic prostatectomy. Conclusions: Higher costs of robotic prostatectomy may be offset by modest health gain resulting from lower risk of early harms and positive margin, provided >150 cases are performed each year. Considerable uncertainty persists in the absence of directly comparative randomised data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]