Search

Background A study within a trial (SWAT) is a self-contained research study embedded within one or more host trials to evaluate or explore alternative ways of delivering or organising a particular trial process. There is limited evidence of SWATs evaluating trial processes other than recruitment and retention. Purpose Embedding a SWAT into a host trial provides a potential method of evaluating an aspect of intervention implementation, such as engagement or compliance with the intervention. Research Design This paper presents two case studies of SWATs which aim to test the use of video animations to improve intervention implementation, with particular focus on enhancing understanding, engagement and compliance. These are important aspects of intervention implementation as they are directly linked to intervention effectiveness and therefore, important to study. Results In this paper, we present the potential benefits of conducting SWATs of intervention implementation processes as well as discussing the methodological considerations for embedding a SWAT of this nature within a host trial. Benefits include the opportunity to test minor refinements to intervention implementation within trials through robust randomised SWATs, and the possibility of increasing trial efficiency by maximising the quality or quantity of intervention implementation. Methodological considerations surrounding the design and conduct of the SWAT as well as statistical and health economics considerations are discussed in this paper. Conclusions This paper presents a novel application of SWAT methodology in investigating intervention implementation processes within trial conduct.

Objectives Case–control studies are often used to identify the risk factors for pancreatic cancer. The objective of this study was to evaluate the reporting of case–control studies of the risk factors for pancreatic cancer using the Strengthening The Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for case–control studies checklist. Study Design and Setting We conducted a comprehensive literature search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to identify reports of case–control studies published between 2016 and 2018. We scored article reporting using a reporting adherence form developed from the STROBE checklist for case–control studies, consisting of 14 STROBE items related to the title, abstract, methods, and results sections. Results We included reports of 47 case–control studies investigating a variety of risk factors, such as medical conditions and lifestyle factors. Reporting was inconsistent and inadequate. Efforts to address bias and how the study size was arrived at were particularly poorly described. Study cases were described in more detail than study controls. Conclusion Reporting of case–control studies remains inadequate more than 10 years after the STROBE reporting guideline was published. Our findings suggest that authors do not understand the extent to which study methods and findings should be reported to enable studies to be fully understood, and their methods reproduced., Highlights • Reporting in a sample of case–control studies was found to be inadequate. • Clear, complete reporting is essential for study findings to be understood and compared. • Clearly described methods allow studies to be reproduced. • The use of the Strengthening The Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology reporting guideline is essential when reporting observational studies.

IntroductionUnmet needs in patients with cancer and their carers are common but poorly identified and addressed. The Needs Assessment Tool-Cancer (NAT-C) is a structured consultation guide to identify and triage patient and carer unmet needs. The NAT-C is validated, but its effectiveness in reducing unmet patient and carer needs in primary care is unknown.Methods and analysisCluster randomised controlled trial with internal pilot and embedded process evaluation to test the clinical and cost effectiveness of the NAT-C in primary care for people with active cancer in reducing unmet patient and carer need, compared with usual care. We will recruit 1080 patients with active cancer (and carers if relevant) from 54 general practices in England.Participating practices will be randomised 1:1 to either deliver an NAT-guided clinical consultation plus usual care or to usual care alone. Consenting participants with active cancer and their carers (if nominated) will be asked to complete study questionnaires at baseline, 1 and 3 months for all, 6 months except for those recruited outside of the last 3 months of recruitment, and attend an NAT-C appointment if allocated to an intervention practice. An internal pilot will assess: site and participant recruitment, intervention uptake and follow-up rates. The primary outcome, the proportion of patients with an unmet need on the Supportive Care Needs Survey Short Form 34 at 3 months postregistration, will be analysed using a multilevel logistic regression. Mixed-methods process evaluation informed by Normalisation Process Theory will use quantitative survey and interview data from clinicians and key stakeholders in cancer care to develop an implementation strategy for nationwide rollout of the NAT-C if the intervention is cost-effective.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval from London-Surrey REC (20/LO/0312). Results will be peer-reviewed, published and made available to research participants.Trial registration numberISRCTN15497400.

Background Reducing computed tomography (CT) examinations of the lumbar spine is one of Choosing Wisely Canada's initial top 10 recommendations. This study's objective was to report the age- and-sex standardized rates of lumbar spine CT ordered by family physicians in 1 health region in Newfoundland and Labrador. Methods We conducted a retrospective study using local health data from Meditech, an electronic health record system, from 2013 to 2016 for the Eastern Health Region of Newfoundland and Labrador, the largest health region in the province. Records were included if the referral was for an adult aged 20 years or more, and CT was ordered by a family physician. Lumbar spine CT rates were contextualized with age- and sex-stratified estimates. Population estimates were provided by the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information to calculate age- and sex-standardized rates per 100 000 people. We calculated rate ratios to test for statistical significance in differences in rates between years. Results A total of 14 370 records were examined. The age- and sex-standardized rates of lumbar spine CT per 100 000 were 1225 in 2013, 1393 in 2014, 1556 in 2015 and 1395 in 2016. The rate ratio was 1.137 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.084-1.194) for the comparison between 2014 and 2013, 1.117 (95% CI 1.067-1.169) between 2015 and 2014, and 0.896 (95% CI 0.857-0.938) between 2016 and 2015. Interpretation The age- and sex-standardized rates suggest that there was a steady rate of lumbar spine CT examinations being ordered by family physicians in Newfoundland and Labrador in 2013-2016. Although all rate ratios were statistically significant, the magnitude of the difference between years is likely not clinically relevant. These rates are important because they serve as a benchmark for future initiatives to reduce unnecessary referrals for lumbar spine CT.

International clinical practice guidelines for low back pain (LBP) contain consistent recommendations including universal provision of information and advice to remain active, discouraging routine referral for imaging, and limited prescription of opioids. This systematic review describes usual care provided by first-contact physicians to patients with LBP. Studies that reported the assessments and care provided to people with LBP in family practice and emergency departments (EDs) from January 2000 to May 2019 were identified by searches of PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Study quality was assessed with reference to representativeness of samples, potential misclassification of patients, potential misclassification of outcomes, inconsistent data and precision of the estimate, and the findings of high-quality studies were prioritized in the data synthesis. We included 26 studies that reported data from almost 195,000 patients: 18 from family practice, and 8 from EDs. Less than 20% of patients with LBP received evidence-based information and advice from their family practitioner. Around 1 in 4 patients with LBP received referral for imaging in family practice and 1 in 3 in EDs. Up to 30% of patients with LBP were prescribed opioids in family practice and up to 60% in EDs. Large numbers of patients who saw a physician for LBP received care that is inconsistent with evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Usual care included overuse of imaging and opioid prescription and underuse of advice and information. Suboptimal care may contribute to the massive burden of the condition worldwide.

ObjectiveTo assess the longer term effects of multifactorial interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community, and to explore whether prespecific trial-level characteristics are associated with greater fall prevention effects.DesignSystematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL, CENTRAL and trial registries were searched up to 25 July 2018.Study selectionWe included randomised controlled trials (≥12 months’ follow-up) evaluating the effects of multifactorial interventions on falls in older people aged 65 years and over, living in the community, compared with either usual care or usual care plus advice.Review methodsTwo authors independently verified studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Rate ratios (RaR) with 95% CIs were calculated for rate of falls, risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and standardised mean difference for continuous outcomes. Data were pooled using a random effects model. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used to assess the quality of the evidence.ResultsWe included 41 trials totalling 19 369 participants; mean age 72–85 years. Exercise was the most common prespecified component of the multifactorial interventions (85%; n=35/41). Most trials were judged at unclear or high risk of bias in ≥1 domain. Twenty trials provided data on rate of falls and showed multifactorial interventions may reduce the rate at which people fall compared with the comparator (RaR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.88; 20 trials; 10 116 participants; I2=90%; low-quality evidence). Multifactorial interventions may also slightly lower the risk of people sustaining one or more falls (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.00; 30 trials; 13 817 participants; I2=56%; moderate-quality evidence) and recurrent falls (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00; 15 trials; 7277 participants; I2=46%; moderate-quality evidence). However, there may be little or no difference in other fall-related outcomes, such as fall-related fractures, falls requiring hospital admission or medical attention and health-related quality of life. Very few trials (n=3) reported on adverse events related to the intervention. Prespecified subgroup analyses showed that the effect on rate of falls may be smaller when compared with usual care plus advice as opposed to usual care only. Overall, heterogeneity remained high and was not explained by the prespecified characteristics included in the meta-regression.ConclusionMultifactorial interventions (most of which include exercise prescription) may reduce the rate of falls and slightly reduce risk of older people sustaining one or more falls and recurrent falls (defined as two or more falls within a specified time period).Trial registration numberCRD42018102549.

Background Low parental participation reduces the impact and sustainability of public health childhood obesity prevention programmes. Using data from a focused ethnography, we developed a multi-level, theory-based implementation optimisation intervention. The optimisation intervention aimed to support local authorities and children’s centres to adopt behaviours to promote engagement in ‘HENRY (Health Exercise Nutrition for the Really Young)’, a UK community obesity prevention intervention. Methods We evaluated the effectiveness of the optimisation intervention on programme enrolment and completion over a 12 implementation period in a cluster randomised controlled trial. We randomised 20 local government authorities (with 126 children’s centres) to HENRY plus the optimisation intervention or to HENRY alone. Primary outcomes were (1) the proportion of centres enrolling at least eight parents per programme and (2) the proportion of centres with a minimum of 75% of parents attending at least five of eight sessions per programme. Trial analyses adjusted for stratification factors (pre-randomisation implementation of HENRY, local authority size, deprivation) and allowed for cluster design. A parallel mixed-methods process evaluation used qualitative interview data and routine monitoring to explain trial results. Results Neither primary outcome differed significantly between groups; 17.8% of intervention centres and 18.0% of control centres achieved the parent enrolment target (adjusted difference -1.2%; 95%CI: -19.5%, 17.1%); 17.1% of intervention centres and 13.9% of control centres achieved the attendance target (adjusted difference 1.2%; 95%CI: -15.7%, 18.1%). Unexpectedly, the trial coincided with substantial national service restructuring, including centre closures and reduced funds. Some commissioning and management teams stopped or reduced implementation of both HENRY and the optimisation intervention due to competing demands. Thus, at follow up, HENRY programmes were delivered to approximately half the number of parents compared to baseline (n=433 vs. 881). Conclusions During a period in which services were reduced by policies outside the realm of this research, this first definitive trial found no evidence of effectiveness for an implementation optimisation intervention promoting parent engagement in an obesity prevention intervention. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02675699 registered 4th February 2016. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02675699

Background Cognitive–behavioural therapy aims to increase quality of life by changing cognitive and behavioural factors that maintain problematic symptoms. A previous overview of cognitive–behavioural therapy systematic reviews suggested that cognitive–behavioural therapy was effective for many conditions. However, few of the included reviews synthesised randomised controlled trials. Objectives This project was undertaken to map the quality and gaps in the cognitive–behavioural therapy systematic review of randomised controlled trial evidence base. Panoramic meta-analyses were also conducted to identify any across-condition general effects of cognitive–behavioural therapy. Data sources The overview was designed with cognitive–behavioural therapy patients, clinicians and researchers. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and OpenGrey databases were searched from 1992 to January 2019. Review methods Study inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) fulfil the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination criteria; (2) intervention reported as cognitive–behavioural therapy or including one cognitive and one behavioural element; (3) include a synthesis of cognitive–behavioural therapy trials; (4) include either health-related quality of life, depression, anxiety or pain outcome; and (5) available in English. Review quality was assessed with A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-2. Reviews were quality assessed and data were extracted in duplicate by two independent researchers, and then mapped according to condition, population, context and quality. The effects from high-quality reviews were pooled within condition groups, using a random-effect panoramic meta-analysis. If the across-condition heterogeneity was I 2 Results A total of 494 reviews were mapped, representing 68% (27/40) of the categories of the International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision, Mortality and Morbidity Statistics. Most reviews (71%, 351/494) were of lower quality. Research on older adults, using cognitive–behavioural therapy preventatively, ethnic minorities and people living outside Europe, North America or Australasia was limited. Out of 494 reviews, 71 were included in the primary panoramic meta-analyses. A modest effect was found in favour of cognitive–behavioural therapy for health-related quality of life (standardised mean difference 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.41, prediction interval –0.05 to 0.50, I 2 = 32%), anxiety (standardised mean difference 0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.43, prediction interval –0.28 to 0.88, I 2 = 62%) and pain (standardised mean difference 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.41, prediction interval –0.28 to 0.74, I 2 = 64%) outcomes. All condition, subgroup and sensitivity effect estimates remained consistent with the general effect. A statistically significant interaction effect was evident between the active and non-active comparator groups for the health-related quality-of-life outcome. A general effect for depression outcomes was not produced as a result of considerable heterogeneity across reviews and conditions. Limitations Data extraction and analysis were conducted at the review level, rather than returning to the individual trial data. This meant that the risk of bias of the individual trials could not be accounted for, but only the quality of the systematic reviews that synthesised them. Conclusion Owing to the consistency and homogeneity of the highest-quality evidence, it is proposed that cognitive–behavioural therapy can produce a modest general, across-condition benefit in health-related quality-of-life, anxiety and pain outcomes. Future work Future research should focus on how the modest effect sizes seen with cognitive–behavioural therapy can be increased, for example identifying alternative delivery formats to increase adherence and reduce dropout, and pursuing novel methods to assess intervention fidelity and quality. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017078690. 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. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The majority of psychological treatment research is dedicated to investigating the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) across different conditions, population and contexts. We aimed to summarise the current systematic review evidence and evaluate the consistency of CBT's effect across different conditions. We included reviews of CBT randomised controlled trials in any: population, condition, format, context, with any type of comparator and published in English. We searched DARE, Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, CDAS, and OpenGrey between 1992 and January 2019. Reviews were quality assessed, their data extracted and summarised. The effects upon health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were pooled, within-condition groups. If the across-condition heterogeneity was I2 < 75%, we pooled effects using a random-effect panoramic meta-analysis. We summarised 494 reviews (221 128 participants), representing 14/20 physical and 13/20 mental conditions (World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases). Most reviews were lower-quality (351/494), investigated face-to-face CBT (397/494), and in adults (378/494). Few reviews included trials conducted in Asia, South America or Africa (45/494). CBT produced a modest benefit across-conditions on HRQoL (standardised mean difference 0.23; 95% confidence intervals 0.14–0.33, I2 = 32%). The effect's associated prediction interval −0.05 to 0.50 suggested CBT will remain effective in conditions for which we do not currently have available evidence. While there remain some gaps in the completeness of the evidence base, we need to recognise the consistent evidence for the general benefit which CBT offers.

Objectives 1) Evaluate implementation of the Back Skills Training (BeST) programme, a group cognitive behavioural approach for patients with low back pain (LBP) developed for a clinical trial, into the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom; 2) Compare patient outcomes with the BeST Trial results. Design Two stage observational cohort implementation study. Participants Stage 1: NHS Clinicians enrolled in BeST online training. Stage 2: Patients with LBP attending NHS physiotherapy departments and enrolled in the BeST programme. Intervention An online training and implementation programme. Outcomes Stage 1: LBP attitudes and beliefs, self-rated competence, intention and actual implementation were collected before, immediately, 4- and 12-months post-training. Stage 2: Patients rated pain, function, recovery and satisfaction before and up to one year after attending the BeST programme. Results Stage 1: 1324 clinicians (157 NHS Trusts) enrolled in the training; 586 (44%) clinicians (101 NHS Trusts) completed training; 443/586 (76%) clinicians provided post-training data; 253/443 (57%) clinicians intended to implement the programme; 148/381 (39%) clinicians (54 NHS Trusts) provided follow-up data; 49/148 (33.1%) clinicians (27 NHS Trusts) implemented the programme. Attitudes and beliefs shifted towards a biopsychosocial model post-training. Stage 2: 923 patients were enrolled. Patients reported improvements in function (mean change: 1.55; 95%CI: 1.25, 1.86) and pain (−0.84; −1.1, −0.58) at follow-up. The majority rated themselves improved and satisfied with the programme. Conclusion Online training had good reach into NHS Trusts although, not everyone went onto implement the programme. Improvements in function that were consistent with the original trial were demonstrated.

Background Community-based obesity prevention interventions are often commissioned despite the limited evidence base. HENRY (Health, Exercise, Nutrition for the Really Young) is a programme delivered to parents of preschool children across the UK. Early evidence suggests that it may be effective, but a robust evaluation has not been conducted. We initiated a systematic evaluation of HENRY by studying the feasibility of conducting a multi-centre definitive trial to evaluate its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to prevent obesity. Objectives were to assess the feasibility of recruiting local authorities, centres and parents; test processes and time required to train and certify intervention staff; explore HENRY commissioning processes; identify potential sources (and associated impact) of contamination; and consider the feasibility of trial procedures. Methods We conducted a multi-centre, open labelled, two group, prospective, cluster randomised, controlled, feasibility study, with embedded process evaluation and pre-defined criteria for progression to definitive trial. We sought to recruit 120 parents from 12 children’s centres, across two UK local authority (government) areas. Within each local authority, we planned to randomise three centres to HENRY and three to ‘standard care’ control. Our plan was to collect data in family homes at baseline and 12 months, including parent and child height and weight, and parent-reported questionnaires on self-efficacy, feeding, eating habits, quality of life and resource use. Contamination, implementation and study acceptability were explored using parent interviews. Results We recruited two local authorities and 12 children’s centres within eight months. One hundred and seventeen parents were recruited (average 3.9 parents per programme) and follow-up data were collected from 85% of participants. Process data from 20 parents and 24 members of staff indicate that both would benefit from more detail about their involvement as participants, but that methods were acceptable. Contamination was likely, though the impact of this on behaviour was unclear. Conclusion Our findings indicate that a cluster RCT of HENRY to assess its effect on childhood obesity prevention is feasible. This study has allowed us to design a pragmatic definitive trial with minimal bias, taking account of lessons learnt from conducting evaluation research in public health settings. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03333733 registered 6th November 2017.

Background It is unclear how multiple treatment comparisons are managed in the analysis of multi-arm trials, particularly related to reducing type I (false positive) and type II errors (false negative). Methods We conducted a cohort study of clinical-trial protocols that were approved by research ethics committees in the UK, Switzerland, Germany and Canada in 2012. We examined the use of multiple-testing procedures to control the overall type I error rate. We created a decision tool to determine the need for multiple-testing procedures. We compared the result of the decision tool to the analysis plan in the protocol. We also compared the pre-specified analysis plans in trial protocols to their publications. Results Sixty-four protocols for multi-arm trials were identified, of which 50 involved multiple testing. Nine of 50 trials (18%) used a single-step multiple-testing procedures such as a Bonferroni correction and 17 (38%) used an ordered sequence of primary comparisons to control the overall type I error. Based on our decision tool, 45 of 50 protocols (90%) required use of a multiple-testing procedure but only 28 of the 45 (62%) accounted for multiplicity in their analysis or provided a rationale if no multiple-testing procedure was used. We identified 32 protocol–publication pairs, of which 8 planned a global-comparison test and 20 planned a multiple-testing procedure in their trial protocol. However, four of these eight trials (50%) did not use the global-comparison test. Likewise, 3 of the 20 trials (15%) did not perform the multiple-testing procedure in the publication. The sample size of our study was small and we did not have access to statistical-analysis plans for the included trials in our study. Conclusions Strategies to reduce type I and type II errors are inconsistently employed in multi-arm trials. Important analytical differences exist between planned analyses in clinical-trial protocols and subsequent publications, which may suggest selective reporting of analyses.

BackgroundAgar dilution is the reference method for antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) of anaerobes, but currently the only verified and published method utilises supplemented brucella agar, which is not readily available in the UK.As FAA is often the medium of choice for primary culture of anaerobes in clinical laboratories, the aim of this study was to investigate the suitability of this medium as an alternative to brucella agar for the reference method.MethodsOne hundred isolates submitted to the UKARU, all with pre-determined MICs to: clindamycin; meropenem; metronidazole; penicillin and doxycycline, were tested.MICs were obtained by agar dilution using both in-house produced FAA, supplemented with 5% defibrinated horse blood, and supplemented brucella blood agar (BRU).End points were selected according to CLSI guidance and interpreted using EUCAST clinical breakpoints for anaerobes (FDA guidance for doxycycline).ResultsFor the majority of isolates the correlation between FAA and BRU MICs was good.Errors were found for each antimicrobial, with the highest numbers recorded for metronidazole and doxycycline. The majority of errors were within 1-2 dilutions, but spanned the clinical breakpoints. Others were single replicate errors, which were anomalous against a minimum of three additional results.Several species such as P. distasonis and C. ramosum demonstrated raised numbers of errors/variable results and will require further investigation.ConclusionsOverall the reproducibility of agar dilution testing on FAA compared to BRU was good, suggesting that FAA is a suitable media for AST of anaerobes. Further assessment of several species is required.

BackgroundThe frequency of resistance to carbapenems in Bacteroides fragilis isolates is rising and is conferred by a metallo-β-lactamase encoded by the cfiA gene. The utilisation of existing technologies such as MALDI-TOF MS (MTMS) may allow for the early detection of this important resistance phenotype.Methods168 B. fragilis isolates were tested. Meropenem MICs were performed by agar dilution and the results interpreted using EUCAST guidelines. All isolates were identified to species level by MTMS and the presence of CfiA detected using the Bruker MBT subtyping module. The presence of the cfiA gene was confirmed by PCR. Next generation sequencing (NGS) was utilised for discrepant results.Results108 isolates (64%) were phenotypically susceptible, with 98% of these testing negative for cfiA by both MTMS and PCR. 40 isolates (25%) were phenotypically resistant, of which 65% were positive by PCR and MTMS with 35% negative by both methods.35% of positive isolates were found to have an IS element upstream of cfiA, and all had an MIC ≥ 64 mg/L.Discordant results included two isolates which were susceptible, cfiA positive and IS negative, and three cfiA negative resistant isolates.ConclusionOverall, a good correlation was observed between methods. Discrepancies highlight an important distinction between the presence of the cfiA gene and its expression.Although a negative MTMS result does not rule out resistance, it is a rapid and valuable tool to guide early therapeutic decisions for this important pathogen.

Purpose The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) is a commonly used outcome measure for osteoarthritis. There are different versions of the WOMAC (Likert, visual analogue or numeric scales). A previous review of trials published before 2010 found poor reporting and inconsistency in how the WOMAC was used. This review explores whether these problems persist. Methods This systematic review included randomised trials of hip and/or knee osteoarthritis published in 2016 that used the WOMAC. Data were extracted on the version used, score range, analysis and results of the WOMAC, and whether these details were clearly reported. Results This review included 62 trials and 41 reported the WOMAC total score. The version used and item range for the WOMAC total score were unclear in 44% (n = 18/41) and 24% (n = 10/41) of trials, respectively. The smallest total score range was 0–10 (calculated by averaging 24 items scored 0–10); the largest was 0–2400 (calculated by summing 24 items scored 0–100). All trials reported the statistical analysis methods but only 29% reported the between-group mean difference and 95% confidence interval. Conclusion Details on the use and scoring of the WOMAC were often not reported. We recommend that trials report the version of the WOMAC and the score range used. The between-group treatment effect and corresponding confidence interval should be reported. If all the items of the WOMAC are collected, the total score and individual subscale scores should be presented. Better reporting would facilitate the interpretation, comparison and synthesis of the WOMAC score in trials. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-018-1978-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Purpose: To assess the inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity of the Communication Evaluation in Rehabilitation Tool, which aims to externally assess physiotherapists competency in using Self-Determination Theory-based communication strategies in practice. Materials and methods: Audio recordings of initial consultations between 24 physiotherapists and 24 patients with chronic low back pain in four hospitals in Ireland were obtained as part of a larger randomised controlled trial. Three raters, all of whom had Ph.Ds in psychology and expertise in motivation and physical activity, independently listened to the 24 audio recordings and completed the 18-item Communication Evaluation in Rehabilitation Tool. Inter-rater reliability between all three raters was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. Concurrent validity was assessed using Pearson’s r correlations with a reference standard, the Health Care Climate Questionnaire. Results: The total score for the Communication Evaluation in Rehabilitation Tool is an average of all 18 items. Total scores demonstrated good inter-rater reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) = 0.8) and concurrent validity with the Health Care Climate Questionnaire total score (range: r = 0.7–0.88). Item-level scores of the Communication Evaluation in Rehabilitation Tool identified five items that need improvement. Conclusion: Results provide preliminary evidence to support future use and testing of the Communication Evaluation in Rehabilitation Tool.Implications for RehabilitationPromoting patient autonomy is a learned skill and while interventions exist to train clinicians in these skills there are no tools to assess how well clinicians use these skills when interacting with a patient. The lack of robust assessment has severe implications regarding both the fidelity of clinician training packages and resulting outcomes for promoting patient autonomy.This study has developed a novel measurement tool Communication Evaluation in Rehabilitation Tool and a comprehensive user manual to assess how well health care providers use autonomy-supportive communication strategies in real world-clinical settings.This tool has demonstrated good inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity in its initial testing phase.The Communication Evaluation in Rehabilitation Tool can be used in future studies to assess autonomy-supportive communication and undergo further measurement property testing as per our recommendations. Promoting patient autonomy is a learned skill and while interventions exist to train clinicians in these skills there are no tools to assess how well clinicians use these skills when interacting with a patient. The lack of robust assessment has severe implications regarding both the fidelity of clinician training packages and resulting outcomes for promoting patient autonomy. This study has developed a novel measurement tool Communication Evaluation in Rehabilitation Tool and a comprehensive user manual to assess how well health care providers use autonomy-supportive communication strategies in real world-clinical settings. This tool has demonstrated good inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity in its initial testing phase. The Communication Evaluation in Rehabilitation Tool can be used in future studies to assess autonomy-supportive communication and undergo further measurement property testing as per our recommendations.

This study aims to review the methodology and reporting of sample size calculation in a contemporary sample of hip and knee osteoarthritis trials. The choice of sample size is a key aspect of designing a clinical trial, ensuring that the trial is powered to detect clinically important treatment effects, is ethically sound and does not overuse resources. Accurate and complete reporting of the sample size calculation allows the reader to interpret the trial results alongside the aims and assumptions made when the trial was designed.

Background: Falls and fall-related injuries are common, particularly in those aged over 65, with around one-third of older people living in the community falling at least once a year. Falls prevention interventions may comprise single component interventions (e.g. exercise), or involve combinations of two or more different types of intervention (e.g. exercise and medication review). Their delivery can broadly be divided into two main groups: 1) multifactorial interventions where component interventions differ based on individual assessment of risk; or 2) multiple component interventions where the same component interventions are provided to all people. Objectives: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of multifactorial interventions and multiple component interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, trial registers and reference lists. Date of search: 12 June 2017. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials, individual or cluster, that evaluated the effects of multifactorial and multiple component interventions on falls in older people living in the community, compared with control (i.e. usual care (no change in usual activities) or attention control (social visits)) or exercise as a single intervention. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias and extracted data. We calculated the rate ratio (RaR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for rate of falls. For dichotomous outcomes we used risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs. For continuous outcomes, we used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. We pooled data using the random-effects model. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence. Main results: We included 62 trials involving 19,935 older people living in the community. The median trial size was 248 participants. Most trials included more women than men. The mean ages in trials ranged from 62 to 85 years (median 77 years). Most trials (43 trials) reported follow-up of 12 months or over. We assessed most trials at unclear or high risk of bias in one or more domains. Forty-four trials assessed multifactorial interventions and 18 assessed multiple component interventions. (I2 not reported if = 0%). Multifactorial interventions versus usual care or attention control: This comparison was made in 43 trials. Commonly-applied or recommended interventions after assessment of each participant's risk profile were exercise, environment or assistive technologies, medication review and psychological interventions. Multifactorial interventions may reduce the rate of falls compared with control: rate ratio (RaR) 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.87; 19 trials; 5853 participants; I2 = 88%; low-quality evidence. Thus if 1000 people were followed over one year, the number of falls may be 1784 (95% CI 1553 to 2016) after multifactorial intervention versus 2317 after usual care or attention control. There was low-quality evidence of little or no difference in the risks of: falling (i.e. people sustaining one or more fall) (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03; 29 trials; 9637 participants; I2 = 60%); recurrent falls (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03; 12 trials; 3368 participants; I2 = 53%); fall-related hospital admission (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.07; 15 trials; 5227 participants); requiring medical attention (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10; 8 trials; 3078 participants). There is low-quality evidence that multifactorial interventions may reduce the risk of fall-related fractures (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.01; 9 trials; 2850 participants) and may slightly improve health-related quality of life but not noticeably (SMD 0.19, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.35; 9 trials; 2373 participants; I2 = 70%). Of three trials reporting on adverse events, one found none, and two reported 12 participants with self-limiting musculoskeletal symptoms in total. Multifactorial interventions versus exercise: Very low-quality evidence from one small trial of 51 recently-discharged orthopaedic patients means that we are uncertain of the effects on rate of falls or risk of falling of multifactorial interventions versus exercise alone. Other fall-related outcomes were not assessed. Multiple component interventions versus usual care or attention control: The 17 trials that make this comparison usually included exercise and another component, commonly education or home-hazard assessment. There is moderate-quality evidence that multiple interventions probably reduce the rate of falls (RaR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.91; 6 trials; 1085 participants; I2 = 45%) and risk of falls (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.90; 11 trials; 1980 participants). There is low-quality evidence that multiple interventions may reduce the risk of recurrent falls, although a small increase cannot be ruled out (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.05; 4 trials; 662 participants). Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of multiple component interventions on the risk of fall-related fractures (2 trials) or fall-related hospital admission (1 trial). There is low-quality evidence that multiple interventions may have little or no effect on the risk of requiring medical attention (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.35; 1 trial; 291 participants); conversely they may slightly improve health-related quality of life (SMD 0.77, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.39; 4 trials; 391 participants; I2 = 88%). Of seven trials reporting on adverse events, five found none, and six minor adverse events were reported in two. Multiple component interventions versus exercise: This comparison was tested in five trials. There is low-quality evidence of little or no difference between the two interventions in rate of falls (1 trial) and risk of falling (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.10; 3 trials; 863 participants) and very low-quality evidence, meaning we are uncertain of the effects on hospital admission (1 trial). One trial reported two cases of minor joint pain. Other falls outcomes were not reported. Authors' conclusions: Multifactorial interventions may reduce the rate of falls compared with usual care or attention control. However, there may be little or no effect on other fall-related outcomes. Multiple component interventions, usually including exercise, may reduce the rate of falls and risk of falling compared with usual care or attention control.

Background: Approximately 670,000 people in the UK have dementia. Previous literature suggests that physical exercise could slow dementia symptom progression. Objectives: To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a bespoke exercise programme, in addition to usual care, on the cognitive impairment (primary outcome), function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of people with mild to moderate dementia (MMD) and carer burden and HRQoL. Design: Intervention development, systematic review, multicentred, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a parallel economic evaluation and qualitative study. Setting: 15 English regions. Participants: People with MMD living in the community. Intervention: A 4-month moderate- to high-intensity, structured exercise programme designed specifically for people with MMD, with support to continue unsupervised physical activity thereafter. Exercises were individually prescribed and progressed, and participants were supervised in groups. The comparator was usual practice. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale – Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog). The secondary outcomes were function [as measured using the Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale (BADLS)], generic HRQoL [as measured using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version (EQ-5D-3L)], dementia-related QoL [as measured using the Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease (QoL-AD) scale], behavioural symptoms [as measured using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI)], falls and fractures, physical fitness (as measured using the 6-minute walk test) and muscle strength. Carer outcomes were HRQoL (Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease) (as measured using the EQ-5D-3L) and carer burden (as measured using the Zarit Burden Interview). The economic evaluation was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from a NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. We measured health and social care use with the Client Services Receipt Inventory. Participants were followed up for 12 months. Results: Between February 2013 and June 2015, 494 participants were randomised with an intentional unequal allocation ratio: 165 to usual care and 329 to the intervention. The mean age of participants was 77 years [standard deviation (SD) 7.9 years], 39% (193/494) were female and the mean baseline ADAS-Cog score was 21.5 (SD 9.0). Participants in the intervention arm achieved high compliance rates, with 65% (214/329) attending between 75% and 100% of sessions. Outcome data were obtained for 85% (418/494) of participants at 12 months, at which point a small, statistically significant negative treatment effect was found in the primary outcome, ADAS-Cog (patient reported), with a mean difference of –1.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) –2.62 to –0.17]. There were no treatment effects for any of the other secondary outcome measures for participants or carers: for the BADLS there was a mean difference of –0.6 (95% CI –2.05 to 0.78), for the EQ-5D-3L a mean difference of –0.002 (95% CI –0.04 to 0.04), for the QoL-AD scale a mean difference of 0.7 (95% CI –0.21 to 1.65) and for the NPI a mean difference of –2.1 (95% CI –4.83 to 0.65). Four serious adverse events were reported. The exercise intervention was dominated in health economic terms. Limitations: In the absence of definitive guidance and rationale, we used a mixed exercise programme. Neither intervention providers nor participants could be masked to treatment allocation. Conclusions: This is a large well-conducted RCT, with good compliance to exercise and research procedures. A structured exercise programme did not produce any clinically meaningful benefit in function or HRQoL in people with dementia or on carer burden. Future work: Future work should concentrate on approaches other than exercise to influence cognitive impairment in dementia. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN32612072. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment Vol. 22, No. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Additional funding was provided by the Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre and the Oxford NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care.

To review the methodology and reporting of sample size calculations in a contemporary sample of trials in osteoarthritis.Randomized trials in hip and/or knee osteoarthritis published in 2016 were identified by searching MEDLINE, Cochrane library, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PEDro, and AMED until March 31, 2017. Data were extracted on study characteristics, methods used to calculate the sample size, and the reporting and justification of components used in the sample size calculation. We attempted to replicate the sample size calculation using the reported information.This review included 116 trials. Seventy-eight (67%, n = 78/116) reported a power calculation. Less than a quarter reported all core components of the sample size calculation (21%, n = 16/78). The sample size calculation was only reproducible in 53% of the trials that reported a power calculation (n = 41/78). The replicated calculation produced a sample size over 10% larger than the reported value in 12% of trials (n = 9/78). Insufficient information was reported to allow the sample size calculation to be replicated in a quarter of trials (27%, n = 21/78).Sample size calculations in trials of hip and knee osteoarthritis are not adequately reported, and the calculation frequently cannot be reproduced.

Background Online training is growing in popularity and yet its effectiveness for training licensed health professionals (HCPs) in clinical interventions is not clear. We aimed to systematically review the literature on the effectiveness of online versus alternative training methods in clinical interventions for licensed Health Care Professionals (HCPs) on outcomes of knowledge acquisition, practical skills, clinical behaviour, self-efficacy and satisfaction. Methods Seven databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from January 2000 to June 2015. Two independent reviewers rated trial quality and extracted trial data. Comparative effects were summarised as standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using a random-effects model for three contrasts of online versus (i) interactive workshops (ii) taught lectures and (iii) written/electronic manuals. Results We included 14 studies with a total of 1089 participants. Most trials studied medical professionals, used a workshop or lecture comparison, were of high risk of bias and had small sample sizes (range 21-183). Using the GRADE approach, we found low quality evidence that there was no difference between online training and an interactive workshop for clinical behaviour SMD 0.12 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.37). We found very low quality evidence of no difference between online methods and both a workshop and lecture for knowledge (workshop: SMD 0.04 (95% CI -0.28 to 0.36); lecture: SMD 0.22 (95% CI: -0.08, 0.51)). Lastly, compared to a manual (n = 3/14), we found very low quality evidence that online methods were superior for knowledge SMD 0.99 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.96). There were too few studies to draw any conclusions on the effects of online training for practical skills, self-efficacy, and satisfaction across all contrasts. Conclusions It is likely that online methods may be as effective as alternative methods for training HCPs in clinical interventions for the outcomes of knowledge and clinical behaviour. However, the low quality of the evidence precludes drawing firm conclusions on the relative effectiveness of these training methods. Moreover, the confidence intervals around our effect sizes were large and could encompass important differences in effectiveness. More robust, adequately powered RCTs are needed. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-017-1047-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Dupuytren’s disease is a common fibrotic condition of the hand affecting 4% of the population and causes the fingers to curl irreversibly into the palm. It has a strong familial tendency, there is no approved treatment for early stage disease, and patients with established digital contractures are most commonly treated by surgery. This is associated with prolonged recovery, and less invasive techniques have high recurrence rates. The myofibroblasts, the cells responsible for the excessive matrix deposition and contraction, are aggregated in nodules. Using excised diseased and control human tissue, we found that immune cells interspersed amongst the myofibroblasts secrete cytokines. Of these, only tumour necrosis factor (TNF) promoted the development of myofibroblasts. The clinically approved anti-TNF agents led to inhibition of the myofibroblast phenotypein vitro. This clinical trial is designed to assess the efficacy of the anti-TNF agent adalimumab on participants with early disease. The first part is a dose-ranging study where nodules of participants already scheduled for surgery will be injected with either placebo (saline) or varying doses of adalimumab. The excised tissue will then be analysed for markers of myofibroblast activity. The second part of the study will recruit participants with early stage disease. They will be randomised 1: 1 to receive either adalimumab or placebo at 3 month intervals over 1 year and will then be followed for a further 6 months. Outcome measures will include nodule hardness, size and disease progression. The trial will also determine the cost-effectiveness of adalimumb treatment for this group of participants.

Background Since 2000, guidelines have been consistent in recommending when diagnostic imaging for low back pain should be obtained to ensure patient safety and reduce unnecessary tests. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the pooled proportion of CT and x-ray imaging of the lumbar spine that were considered appropriate in primary and emergency care. Methods Pubmed, CINAHL, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Embase were searched for synonyms of “low back pain”, “guidelines”, and “adherence” that were published after 2000. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed for inclusion with forward and backward tracking on included studies. Included studies had data extracted and synthesized. Risk of bias was performed on all studies, and GRADE was performed on included studies that provided data on CT and x-ray separately. A random effect, single proportion meta-analysis model was used. Results Six studies were included in the descriptive synthesis, and 5 studies included in the meta-analysis. Five of the 6 studies assessed appropriateness of x-rays; two of the six studies assessed appropriateness of CTs. The pooled estimate for appropriateness of x-rays was 43% (95% CI: 30%, 56%) and the pooled estimate for appropriateness of CTs was 54% (95% CI: 51%, 58%). Studies did not report adequate information to fulfill the RECORD checklist (reporting guidelines for research using observational data). Risk of bias was high in 4 studies, moderate in one, and low in one. GRADE for x-ray appropriateness was low-quality and for CT appropriateness was very-low-quality. Conclusion While this study determined a pooled proportion of appropriateness for both x-ray and CT imaging for low back pain, there is limited confidence in these numbers due to the downgrading of the evidence using GRADE. Further research on this topic is needed to inform our understanding of x-ray and CT appropriateness in order to improve healthcare systems and decrease patient harms.

Purpose: To determine if physiotherapist-led cognitive-behavioural (CB) interventions are effective for low back pain (LBP) and described sufficiently for replication. Method: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with LBP treated by physiotherapists using a CB intervention were included. Outcomes of disability, pain, and quality of life were assessed using the GRADE approach. Intervention reporting was assessed using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication. Results: Of 1898 titles, 5 RCTs (n = 1390) were identified. Compared to education and/or exercise interventions, we found high-quality evidence that CB had a greater effect (SMD; 95% CI) on reducing disability (−0.19; −0.32, −0.07), pain (−0.21; −0.33, −0.09); and moderate-quality evidence of little difference in quality of life (−0.06; −0.18 to 0.07). Sufficient information was provided on dose, setting, and provider; but not content and procedural information. Studies tended to report the type of CB component used (e.g., challenging unhelpful thoughts) with little detail on how it was operationalised. Moreover, access to treatment manuals, patient materials and provider training was lacking. Conclusions: With additional training, physiotherapists can deliver effective CB interventions. However, without training or resources, successful translation and implementation remains unlikely. Researchers should improve reporting of procedural information, provide relevant materials, and offer accessible provider training. Implications for RehabilitationPrevious reviews have established that traditional biomedical-based treatments (e.g., acupuncture, manual therapy, massage, and specific exercise programmes) that focus only on physical symptoms do provide short-term benefits but the sustained effect is questionable. A cognitive-behavioural (CB) approach includes techniques to target both physical and psychosocial symptoms related to pain and provides patients with long-lasting skills to manage these symptoms on their own. This combined method has been used in a variety of settings delivered by different health care professionals and has been shown to produce long-term effects on patient outcomes. What has been unclear is if these programmes are effective when delivered by physiotherapists in routine physiotherapy settings. Our study synthesises the evidence for this context.We have confirmed with high-quality evidence that with additional training, physiotherapists can deliver CB interventions that are effective for patients with back pain. Physiotherapists who are considering enhancing their treatment for patients with low back pain should consider undertaking some additional training in how to incorporate CB techniques into their practice to optimise treatment benefits and help patients receive long-lasting treatment effects.Importantly, our results indicate that using a CB approach, including a variety of CB techniques that could be easily adopted in a physical therapy setting, provides greater benefits for patient outcomes compared to brief education, exercise or physical techniques (such as manual therapy) alone. This provides further support that a combined treatment approach is likely better than one based on physical techniques alone.Notably, we identified a significant barrier to adopting any of these CB interventions in practice. This is because no study provided a description of the intervention or accessible training materials that would allow for accurate replication. Without access to provider training and/or resources, we cannot expect this evidence to be implemented in practice with optimal effects. Thus, we would urge physiotherapists to directly contact authors of the studies for more information on how to incorporate their interventions into their settings. Previous reviews have established that traditional biomedical-based treatments (e.g., acupuncture, manual therapy, massage, and specific exercise programmes) that focus only on physical symptoms do provide short-term benefits but the sustained effect is questionable. A cognitive-behavioural (CB) approach includes techniques to target both physical and psychosocial symptoms related to pain and provides patients with long-lasting skills to manage these symptoms on their own. This combined method has been used in a variety of settings delivered by different health care professionals and has been shown to produce long-term effects on patient outcomes. What has been unclear is if these programmes are effective when delivered by physiotherapists in routine physiotherapy settings. Our study synthesises the evidence for this context. We have confirmed with high-quality evidence that with additional training, physiotherapists can deliver CB interventions that are effective for patients with back pain. Physiotherapists who are considering enhancing their treatment for patients with low back pain should consider undertaking some additional training in how to incorporate CB techniques into their practice to optimise treatment benefits and help patients receive long-lasting treatment effects. Importantly, our results indicate that using a CB approach, including a variety of CB techniques that could be easily adopted in a physical therapy setting, provides greater benefits for patient outcomes compared to brief education, exercise or physical techniques (such as manual therapy) alone. This provides further support that a combined treatment approach is likely better than one based on physical techniques alone. Notably, we identified a significant barrier to adopting any of these CB interventions in practice. This is because no study provided a description of the intervention or accessible training materials that would allow for accurate replication. Without access to provider training and/or resources, we cannot expect this evidence to be implemented in practice with optimal effects. Thus, we would urge physiotherapists to directly contact authors of the studies for more information on how to incorporate their interventions into their settings.

Objective: To determine whether the effect of the ‘Strengthening And stretching for Rheumatoid Arthritis of the Hand' (SARAH) exercise programme on hand function was mediated by changes in the proposed active ingredients: strength, dexterity, and/or range of motion. Methods: The SARAH intervention included exercises hypothesized to improve potential mediators of grip strength, pinch strength, wrist flexion, wrist extension, finger flexion, finger extension, thumb opposition, and dexterity, which would theoretically improve self-reported hand function. All variables were measured at baseline and at 4 and 12 months. Structural equation modelling was used to assess mediation on change in hand function via change in potential mediators. Results: Change in grip strength partially mediated change in hand function. Grip strength mediated 19.4% (95% confidence interval: 0.9% to 37.8%) of the treatment effect. Discussion: Improvements in grip strength at 4 months are likely to mediate improved hand function at 12 months. The role of joint mobility exercises is less clear and is likely influenced by the choice of measurement tools for both mobility and function outcomes. More robust measurements of wrist and hand mobility for patients with rheumatoid arthritis may be necessary to determine the relationship between this variable and self-reported hand function. Conclusion: Using a large trial dataset, we have demonstrated that techniques used to target grip strength are key active ingredients of the SARAH exercise programme and mediate its effect. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Background Current trials are investigating radical intervention in men with metastatic prostate cancer. However, there is a lack of safety data for radical prostatectomy as therapy in this setting. Objective To examine perioperative outcomes and short-term complications after radical prostatectomy for locally resectable, distant metastatic prostate cancer. Design, setting, and participants A retrospective case series from 2007 to 2014 comprising 106 patients with newly diagnosed metastatic (M1) prostate cancer from the USA, Germany, Italy, and Sweden. Intervention Radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Descriptive statistics were used to present margin status, continence, and readmission, reoperation, and overall complication rates at 90 d, as well as for 21 specific complications. Kaplan-Meier plots were used to estimate survival function. Intercenter variability and M1a/ M1b subgroups were examined. Results and limitations Some 79.2% of patients did not suffer any complications; positive-margin (53.8%), lymphocele (8.5%), and wound infection (4.7%) rates were higher in our cohort than in a meta-analysis of open radical prostatectomy performed for standard indications. At a median follow-up of 22.8 mo, 94/106 (88.7%) men were still alive. The study is limited by its retrospective design, differing selection criteria, and short follow-up. Conclusions Radical prostatectomy for men with locally resectable, distant metastatic prostate cancer appears safe in expert hands for meticulously selected patients. Overall and specific complication rates related to the surgical extirpation are not more frequent than when radical prostatectomy is performed for standard indications, and the use of extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in all of this cohort compared to its selective use in localized/locally advanced prostate cancer accounts for any extra morbidity. Patient summary Men presenting with advanced prostate cancer that has spread beyond the prostate are increasingly being considered for treatments directed at the prostate itself. On the basis of results for our international series of 106 men, surgery appears reasonably safe in this setting for certain patients.

Results Using anchor based methods, the estimates using between-group difference were 0.56 at 12 weeks and 0.73 at 24 weeks and the estimates using within-patient change were 0.74 at 12 weeks and 0.90 at 24 weeks. All of the above estimates of the MCID exceed the minimum detectable change of 0.31. However, the results from distribution based methods were not in agreement, with half a standard deviation being 0.29. Further exploration of the results is currently being undertaken examining the effects of utilising the varying methodology. Conclusions A range of estimates for the MCID of the SCL-20 measure have been found. The estimates from the anchor-based approach are much higher than the target differences of approximately 0.3 previously used in clinical trials powered on the SCL-20, suggesting that the improvement regarded as meaningful by patients is much higher than expected.

Missteps in the design and conduct of phase 1 trials have resulted in morbidity and mortality.1,2 Empirical evidence to improve regulatory review of phase 1 trials is lacking. We studied the characteristics of phase 1 trials, frequency of harms, and dissemination of results.

Objectives To assess whether cognitive behavioural (CB) approaches improve disability, pain, quality of life and/or work disability for patients with low back pain (LBP) of any duration and of any age. Methods Nine databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to November 2014. Two independent reviewers rated trial quality and extracted trial data. Standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for individual trials. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using a random-effects model for two contrasts: CB versus no treatment (including wait-list and usual care (WL/UC)), and CB versus other guideline-based active treatment (GAT). Results The review included 23 studies with a total of 3359 participants. Of these, the majority studied patients with persistent LBP (>6 weeks; n=20). At long term follow-up, the pooled SMD for the WL/UC comparison was -0.19 (-0.38, 0.01) for disability, and -0.23 (-0.43, -0.04) for pain, in favour of CB. For the GAT comparison, at long term the pooled SMD was -0.83 (-1.46, -0.19) for disability and -0.48 (-0.93, -0.04) for pain, in favour of CB. While trials varied considerably in methodological quality, and in intervention factors such as provider, mode of delivery, dose, duration, and pragmatism, there were several examples of lower intensity, low cost interventions that were effective. Conclusion CB interventions yield long-term improvements in pain, disability and quality of life in comparison to no treatment and other guideline-based active treatments for patients with LBP of any duration and of any age. Systematic Review Registration PROSPERO protocol registration number: CRD42014010536.