Search

Additional file 1. Data extraction form.

Additional file 1: Appendix Graph 1. Scatter plot showing the number of centres vs the sample size.

Additional file 8. BOTS Risk Assessment Tool (BRAT).

Additional file 2. Online survey.

Additional file 2: Appendix Table 1. A summary of the data extraction variables.

Additional file 4. Additional analyses.

Additional file 7. BOTS guidance.

Additional file 6. BOTS stakeholder group membership.

Additional file 5. BOTS stakeholder survey responses.

Additional file 3: Appendix Table 2. A summary of the criteria for disagreements and discrepancies.

Additional file 4: Appendix Table 3. A summary table showing the main study characteristics of 2019 papers split by randomisation method.

Additional file 1. Participant information sheet.

Additional file 4. The consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ).

Additional file 2. Informed consent form.

Additional file 3. Topic guide.

Background: Loss to follow-up resulting in missing outcomes compromises the validity of trial results by reducing statistical power, negatively affecting generalisability and undermining assumptions made at analysis, leading to potentially biased and misleading results. Evidence that incentives are effective at improving response rates exists, but there is little evidence regarding the best approach, especially in the field of perinatal medicine. The NIHR-funded SIFT trial follow-up of infants at 2 years of age provided an ideal opportunity to address this remaining uncertainty. Methods: Participants: parents of infants from participating neonatal units in the UK and Ireland followed up for SIFT (multicentre RCT investigating two speeds of feeding in babies with gestational age at birth < 32 weeks and/or birthweight < 1500 g). Interventions: parents were randomly allocated to receive incentives (£15 gift voucher) before or after questionnaire return. The objective was to establish whether offering an unconditional incentive in advance or promising an incentive on completion of a questionnaire (conditional) improved the response rate in parents of premature babies. The primary outcome was questionnaire response rate. Permuted block randomisation was performed (variable size blocks), stratified by SIFT allocation (slower/faster feeds) and single/multiple birth. Multiple births were given the same incentives allocation. Parents were unaware that they were in an incentives SWAT; SIFT office staff were not blinded to allocation. Results: Parents of 923 infants were randomised: 459 infants allocated to receive incentive before, 464 infants allocated to receive incentive after; analysis was by intention to treat. Allocation to the incentive before completion led to a significantly higher response rate, 83.0% (381/459) compared to the after-completion group, 76.1% (353/464); adjusted absolute difference of 6.8% (95% confidence interval 1.6% to 12.0%). Giving an incentive in advance is the more costly approach, but the mean difference of ~£3 per infant is small given the higher return. Conclusions: An unconditional incentive in advance led to a significantly higher response rate compared to the promise of an incentive on completion. Against a backdrop of falling response rates to questionnaires, incentives can be an effective way to increase returns. Trial registration: SIFT (ISRCTN76463425). Registered on March 5, 2013.; SWAT registration (SWAT 69 available from http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/TheNorthernIrelandNetworkforTrialsMethodologyResearch/FileStore/Filetoupload,864297,en.pdf). Registered on June 27, 2016.

Additional file 1.

Supplemental material, ESO910047 simulate non v2 for Outcome assessment by central adjudicators in randomised stroke trials: Simulation of differential and non-differential misclassification by Peter J Godolphin, Philip M Bath, Christopher Partlett, Eivind Berge, Martin M Brown, Misha Eliasziw, Per Morten Sandset, Joaquín Serena and Alan A Montgomery in European Stroke Journal

Supplemental material, ESO910047 Supplemental Material for Outcome assessment by central adjudicators in randomised stroke trials: Simulation of differential and non-differential misclassification by Peter J Godolphin, Philip M Bath, Christopher Partlett, Eivind Berge, Martin M Brown, Misha Eliasziw, Per Morten Sandset, Joaquín Serena and Alan A Montgomery in European Stroke Journal

Background\ud Interferon gamma release assays (IGRAs) are blood tests recommended for the diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) infection. There is currently uncertainty about the role and clinical utility of IGRAs in the diagnostic workup of suspected active TB in routine NHS clinical practice.\ud \ud Objectives\ud To compare the diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of T-SPOT.TB® (Oxford Immunotec, Abingdon, UK) and QuantiFERON® TB GOLD In-Tube (Cellestis, Carnegie, VIC, Australia) for diagnosis of suspected active TB and to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of second-generation IGRAs.\ud \ud Design\ud Prospective within-patient comparative diagnostic accuracy study.\ud \ud Setting\ud Secondary care.\ud \ud Participants\ud Adults (aged ≥ 16 years) presenting as inpatients or outpatients at 12 NHS hospital trusts in London, Slough, Oxford, Leicester and Birmingham with suspected active TB.\ud \ud Interventions\ud The index tests [T-SPOT.TB and QuantiFERON GOLD In-Tube (QFT-GIT)] and new enzyme-linked immunospot assays utilising novel Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigens (Rv3615c, Rv2654, Rv3879c and Rv3873) were verified against a composite reference standard applied by a panel of clinical experts blinded to IGRA results.\ud \ud Main outcome measures\ud Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios were calculated to determine diagnostic accuracy. A decision tree model was developed to calculate the incremental costs and incremental health utilities [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] of changing from current practice to using an IGRA as an initial rule-out test.\ud \ud Results\ud A total of 363 patients had active TB (culture-confirmed and highly probable TB cases), 439 had no active TB and 43 had an indeterminate final diagnosis. Comparing T-SPOT.TB and QFT-GIT, the sensitivities [95% confidence interval (CI)] were 82.3% (95% CI 77.7% to 85.9%) and 67.3% (95% CI 62.1% to 72.2%), respectively, whereas specificities were 82.6% (95% CI 78.6% to 86.1%) and 80.4% (95% CI 76.1% to 84.1%), respectively. T-SPOT.TB was more sensitive than QFT-GIT (relative sensitivity 1.22, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.31; p

© 2019 Elsevier Ltd Background: The clinical utility of interferon-γ release assays (IGRAs) for diagnosis of active tuberculosis is unclear, although they are commonly used in countries with a low incidence of tuberculosis. We aimed to resolve this clinical uncertainty by determining the accuracy and utility of commercially available and second-generation IGRAs in the diagnostic assessment of suspected tuberculosis in a low-incidence setting. Methods: We did a prospective cohort study of adults with suspected tuberculosis in routine secondary care in England. Patients were tested for Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection at baseline with commercially available (T-SPOT.TB and QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube [QFT-GIT]) and second-generation (incorporating novel M tuberculosis antigens) IGRAs and followed up for 6–12 months to establish definitive diagnoses. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and predictive values of the tests were determined. Findings: Of the 1060 adults enrolled in the study, 845 were included in the analyses and 363 were diagnosed with tuberculosis. Sensitivity of T-SPOT.TB for all tuberculosis diagnosis, including culture-confirmed and highly probable cases, was 81·4% (95% CI 76·6–85·3), which was higher than QFT-GIT (67·3% [62·0–72·1]). Second-generation IGRAs had a sensitivity of 94·0% (90·0–96·4) for culture-confirmed tuberculosis and 89·2% (85·2–92·2) when including highly probable tuberculosis, giving a negative likelihood ratio for all tuberculosis cases of 0·13 (95% CI 0·10–0·19). Specificity ranged from 86·2% (95% CI 82·3–89·4) for T-SPOT.TB to 80·0% (75·6–83·8) for second-generation IGRAs. Interpretation: Commercially available IGRAs do not have sufficient accuracy for diagnostic evaluation of suspected tuberculosis. Second-generation tests, however, might have sufficiently high sensitivity, low negative likelihood ratio, and correspondingly high negative predictive value in low-incidence settings to facilitate prompt rule-out of tuberculosis. Funding: National Institute for Health Research.

SPIRIT 2013 Checklist: Recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol and related documents. (DOC 120 kb)