Search

Abstract Background The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the evidence for the clinical effectiveness of revision knee arthroplasty (rKA) compared to non-operative treatment for the management of patients with elective, aseptic causes for a failed knee arthroplasty. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and PsychINFO were searched from inception to 1st December 2020 for studies on patients considering elective, aseptic rKA. Patient-relevant outcomes (PROs) were defined as implant survivorship, joint function, quality of life (QoL), complications and hospital admission impact. Results No studies compared elective, aseptic rKA to non-operative management. Forty uncontrolled studies reported on PROs following elective, aseptic rKA (434434 rKA). Pooled estimates for implant survivorship were: 95.5% (95% CI 93.2–97.7%) at 1 year [seven studies (5524 rKA)], 90.8% (95% CI 87.6–94.0%) at 5 years [13 studies (5754 rKA)], 87.4% (95% CI 81.7–93.1%) at 10 years [nine studies (2188 rKA)], and 83.2% (95% CI 76.7–89.7%) at 15 years [two studies (452 rKA)]. Twelve studies (2382 rKA) reported joint function and/or QoL: all found large improvements from baseline to follow-up. Mortality rates were low (0.16% to 2% within 1 year) [four studies (353064 rKA)]. Post-operative complications were common (9.1 to 37.2% at 90 days). Conclusion Higher-quality evidence is needed to support patients with decision-making in elective, aseptic rKA. This should include studies comparing operative and non-operative management. Implant survivorship following elective, aseptic rKA was ~ 96% at 1 year, ~ 91% at 5 years and ~ 87% at 10 years. Early complications were common after elective, aseptic rKA and the rates summarised here can be shared with patients during informed consent. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020196922

Abstract Background Early phase dose-finding (EPDF) trials are crucial for the development of a new intervention and influence whether it should be investigated in further trials. Guidance exists for clinical trial protocols and completed trial reports in the SPIRIT and CONSORT guidelines, respectively. However, both guidelines and their extensions do not adequately address the characteristics of EPDF trials. Building on the SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists, the DEFINE study aims to develop international consensus-driven guidelines for EPDF trial protocols (SPIRIT-DEFINE) and reports (CONSORT-DEFINE). Methods The initial generation of candidate items was informed by reviewing published EPDF trial reports. The early draft items were refined further through a review of the published and grey literature, analysis of real-world examples, citation and reference searches, and expert recommendations, followed by a two-round modified Delphi process. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) was pursued concurrently with the quantitative and thematic analysis of Delphi participants’ feedback. Results The Delphi survey included 79 new or modified SPIRIT-DEFINE (n = 36) and CONSORT-DEFINE (n = 43) extension candidate items. In Round One, 206 interdisciplinary stakeholders from 24 countries voted and 151 stakeholders voted in Round Two. Following Round One feedback, one item for CONSORT-DEFINE was added in Round Two. Of the 80 items, 60 met the threshold for inclusion (≥ 70% of respondents voted critical: 26 SPIRIT-DEFINE, 34 CONSORT-DEFINE), with the remaining 20 items to be further discussed at the consensus meeting. The parallel PPIE work resulted in the development of an EPDF lay summary toolkit consisting of a template with guidance notes and an exemplar. Conclusions By detailing the development journey of the DEFINE study and the decisions undertaken, we envision that this will enhance understanding and help researchers in the development of future guidelines. The SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE guidelines will allow investigators to effectively address essential items that should be present in EPDF trial protocols and reports, thereby promoting transparency, comprehensiveness, and reproducibility. Trial registration SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE are registered with the EQUATOR Network ( https://www.equator-network.org/ ).

Objectives To assess the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an informal caregiver training programme to support the recovery of people following hip fracture surgery.Design Two-arm, multicentre, pragmatic, open, feasibility RCT with embedded qualitative study.Setting National Health Service (NHS) providers in five English hospitals.Participants Community-dwelling adults, aged 60 years and over, who undergo hip fracture surgery and their informal caregivers.Intervention Usual care: usual NHS care. Experimental: usual NHS care plus a caregiver–patient dyad training programme (HIP HELPER). This programme comprised three, 1 hour, one-to-one training sessions for a patient and caregiver, delivered by a nurse, physiotherapist or occupational therapist in the hospital setting predischarge. After discharge, patients and caregivers were supported through three telephone coaching sessions.Randomisation and blinding Central randomisation was computer generated (1:1), stratified by hospital and level of patient cognitive impairment. There was no blinding.Main outcome measures Data collected at baseline and 4 months post randomisation included: screening logs, intervention logs, fidelity checklists, acceptability data and clinical outcomes. Interviews were conducted with a subset of participants and health professionals.Results 102 participants were enrolled (51 patients; 51 caregivers). Thirty-nine per cent (515/1311) of patients screened were eligible. Eleven per cent (56/515) of eligible patients consented to be randomised. Forty-eight per cent (12/25) of the intervention group reached compliance to their allocated intervention. There was no evidence of treatment contamination. Qualitative data demonstrated the trial and HIP HELPER programme was acceptable.Conclusions The HIP HELPER programme was acceptable to patient–caregiver dyads and health professionals. The COVID-19 pandemic impacting on site’s ability to deliver the research. Modifications are necessary to the design for a viable definitive RCT.Trial registration number ISRCTN13270387.

Abstract Background External randomised pilot trials aim to assess whether a future definitive Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) is feasible. Prespecified progression criteria help guide the interpretation of pilot trial findings to decide whether, and how, a definitive RCT should be conducted. This commentary presents a set of proposed recommendations for progression criteria to guide researchers when (i) designing, (ii) conducting, (iii) analysing and (iv) reporting external randomised pilot trials. Methods Recommendations were developed following a mixed methods approach. This involved (i) a methodological review of pilot trial publications, (ii) a cross-sectional study of pilot trial research funding applications, (iii) qualitative interviews with pilot trial researchers and (iv) a survey of corresponding authors of identified pilot trial publications. Initial recommendations were refined following two consultation stakeholder workshops held in July 2022. Recommendations for progression criteria for external randomised pilot trials: i. Design: consider progression criteria from the earliest opportunity; map progression criteria to feasibility objectives; consider quantitative and qualitative interpretations of feasibility; provide justification; develop guidelines rather than rules; seek input from relevant stakeholders. ii. Conduct: regularly monitor pilot trial data against progression criteria. iii. Analysis: avoid considering each progression criterion in isolation; engage in discussion with relevant stakeholders; consider context and other factors external to the pilot trial; consider feasibility (can we?) and progression (will we?). iv. Reporting: we propose a reporting checklist in relation to progression criteria and recommend reporting in a table format for clarity. Conclusion These recommendations provide a helpful resource for researchers to consider progression criteria at different stages of external randomised pilot trials. We have produced a simple infographic tool to summarise these recommendations for researchers to refer to. Further research is needed to evaluate whether these proposed recommendations should inform future development, or update, of established guidelines for the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of external randomised pilot trials.

Abstract Background Exercise is recommended for all people with osteoarthritis. However, these recommendations are based on randomised clinical trials including people with an average age between 60 and 70 years, and these findings cannot reliably be generalised to people aged 80 years or older. Rapid loss of muscle occurs after 70 years of age, and older people are more likely to also have other health conditions that contribute to difficulties with daily activities and impact on their response to exercise. To improve care for people aged 80 or older with osteoarthritis, it is thought that a tailored exercise intervention targeting both osteoarthritis and any other health conditions they have, may be needed. The aim of this study will be to test if it is possible to conduct a randomised controlled trial (RCT) for people over 80 years of age with hip/knee osteoarthritis of a tailored exercise intervention. Methods A multicentre, parallel, 2-group, feasibility RCT with embedded qualitative study, conducted in ≥ 3 UK NHS physiotherapy outpatient services. Participants (n ≥ 50) with clinical knee and/or hip osteoarthritis and ≥ 1 comorbidity will be recruited by screening referrals to participating NHS physiotherapy outpatient services, via screening of general practice records and via identification of eligible individuals from a cohort study run by our research group. Participants will be randomised (computer-generated: 1:1) to receive either: a 12-week education and tailored exercise intervention (TEMPO); or usual care and written information. The primary feasibility objectives are to estimate: (1) ability to screen and recruit eligible participants; (2) retention of participants, measured by the proportion of participants who provide outcome data at 14-week follow-up. Secondary quantitative objectives are to estimate: (1) participant engagement assessed by physiotherapy session attendance and home exercise adherence; (2) sample size calculation for a definitive RCT. One-to-one semi-structured interviews will explore the experiences of trial participants and physiotherapists delivering the TEMPO programme. Discussion Progression criteria will be used to determine whether a definitive trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the TEMPO programme is considered feasible with or without modifications to the intervention or trial design. Trial registration ISRCTN75983430. Registered 3/12/2021. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN75983430.

Objectives This study aims to illuminate the perspectives of informal caregivers who support people following hip fracture surgery.Design A qualitative study embedded within a now completed multicentre, feasibility randomised controlled trial (HIP HELPER).Setting Five English National Health Service hospitals.Participants We interviewed 20 participants (10 informal caregivers and 10 people with hip fracture), following hip fracture surgery. This included one male and nine females who experienced a hip fracture; and seven male and three female informal caregivers. The median age was 72.5 years (range: 65–96 years), 71.0 years (range: 43–81 years) for people with hip fracture and informal caregivers, respectively.Methods Semistructured, virtual interviews were undertaken between November 2021 and March 2022, with caregiver dyads (person with hip fracture and their informal caregiver). Data were analysed thematically.Findings We identified two main themes: expectations of the informal caregiver role and reality of being an informal caregiver; and subthemes: expectations of care and services; responsibility and advocacy; profile of people with hip fracture; decision to be a caregiver; transition from hospital to home.Conclusion Findings suggest informal caregivers do not feel empowered to advocate for a person’s recovery or navigate the care system, leading to increased and unnecessary stress, anxiety and frustration when supporting the person with hip fracture. We suggest that a tailored information giving on the recovery pathway, which is responsive to the caregiving population (ie, considering the needs of male, younger and more active informal caregivers and people with hip fracture) would smooth the transition from hospital to home.Trial registration number ISRCTN13270387.Cite Now

Abstract In 2016, we published a conceptual framework outlining the conclusions of our work in defining pilot and feasibility studies. Since then, the CONSORT extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials has been published and there have been further developments in the pilot study landscape. In this paper, we revisit and extend our framework to incorporate the various feasibility pathways open to researchers, which include internal pilot studies. We consider, with examples, when different approaches to feasibility and pilot studies are more effective and efficient, taking into account the pragmatic decisions that may need to be made. The ethical issues involved in pilot studies are discussed. We end with a consideration of the funders’ perspective in making difficult resource decisions to include feasibility work and the policy implications of these; throughout, we provide examples of the uncertainties and compromises that researchers have to navigate to make progress in the most efficient way.

Abstract Background External randomised pilot trials aim to determine whether a future definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) should be conducted, and if so, how. However, not every pilot trial that suggests that a definitive trial will be feasible will progress to a definitive study. In this study, we surveyed corresponding authors of external randomised pilot trial publications to assess pilot trial outcomes in terms of feasibility and progression. Methods Web-based surveys were sent to corresponding authors of external randomised pilot trial publications, open for four weeks between January and February 2022. Four surveys were produced depending on whether the corresponding author had published a trial protocol or results publication, and whether progression criteria were reported. Surveys asked whether a future RCT was considered feasible, whether progression criteria were met (if applicable), what other factors informed the assessment of pilot trial feasibility, and whether the pilot trial has progressed to further research. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis. Results 98 of 276 corresponding authors completed the survey (average response rate of 36% across all surveys). Of these, 89 respondents indicated that their trial had completed. Ninety per cent of respondents who were corresponding authors of completed pilot trials stated that their pilot trial was either feasible (42/89, 47%) or feasible with changes to the trial design (38/89, 43%), yet only 66% (59/89) reported the intention to conduct a future definitive trial. Availability of funding for a future definitive trial and changing priorities of the Chief Investigator were the most common barriers to progression identified. Qualitative research findings was the most frequent factor considered both by corresponding authors who reported and who did not report progression criteria when determining trial feasibility. Conclusions Just under one quarter (21/89, 24%) of respondents who considered their external randomised pilot trial to be feasible, or feasible with changes, did not intend to conduct a definitive trial highlighting research inefficiency and waste. Trial registration Open Science Framework osf.io/d28hr [20 December 2021]

Abstract Background External randomised pilot trials aim to assess whether a future definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) is feasible. Pre-specified progression criteria help guide the interpretation of pilot trial findings to decide whether, and how, a definitive trial should be conducted. We aimed to examine how researchers report and plan to assess progression criteria in external pilot trial funding applications submitted to the NIHR Research for Patient Benefit Programme. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study of progression criteria inclusion in Stage 1 (outline) and corresponding Stage 2 (full) funding applications for external randomised external pilot trials submitted to NIHR RfPB between July 2017 and July 2019. Results Of the 100 Stage 1 outline applications assessed, 95 were eligible for inclusion (of these, 52 were invited to Stage 2 full application; 43 were rejected) and 49/52 were eligible for inclusion at Stage 2 full application (of these, 35 were awarded funding; 14 were rejected). Over half of applications assessed at Stage 1 (48/95, 51%), and 73% of those assessed at Stage 2 (36/49) included progression criteria in their research plans. Progression criteria were most often reported in a stop-go format, often with additional specified factors that should be considered when determining feasibility (Stage 1 33/48, 69%; Stage 2 21/36, 58%). Recruitment and retention were the most frequent indicators of feasibility to inform progression criteria. One-third of applications provided some justification or rationale for their targets (Stage 1 16/48, 33%; Stage 2 12/36, 33%). Funding committee feedback mentioned progression criteria in over 20% of applications (Stage 1 22/95, 23%; Stage 2 11/49, 22%) to either request the addition of progression criteria or provide justification for the criteria stipulated. Conclusions Our findings indicate that researchers do not always include progression criteria in external randomised pilot trial applications submitted to research funders. This can result in a lack of transparency in the assessment of randomised pilot trial feasibility. Trial registration Open Science Framework osf.io/89ap7, registered 29th June 2021.

Abstract Background Failure to consider relevant cultural, ethnic and diversity parameters (and the intersection between these parameters) during trial protocol development and trial conduct may negatively impact recruitment, intervention development and delivery, and participant adherence and retention, potentially reducing overall internal validity. This case study aimed to evaluate the utility and comparability between the 9-item Gibbs Framework to measure cultural competency and the GRIPP-2(Short Form (SF)) 5-point checklist to assess patient and public involvement in the context of a complex clinical trial conducted in an African setting. Methods We identified and collated all relevant publications, source and procedural data related to the trial and integrated the documents into a dynamic trial timeline. Two independent investigators applied and scored the Gibbs Framework and the GRIPP-2(SF) checklist to the four publications arising from the trial, noting functionality and comparability between tools. Where cultural competency was not met, a third investigator screened all procedural and source data and identified if cultural competency had been achieved but not reported in the publications, or if the trial had not met appropriate cultural competency based on the documentation. Results Application of the Gibbs Framework found that the trial scored ‘2’ for seven of the nine Gibbs items, indicating full cultural competency for those questions. The Framework indicated that the trial research question was not driven by the articulated needs of patients, and neither were patients, caregivers and clinical providers involved in the development of the intervention. Comparability with the GRIPP-2(SF) checklist showed that the Gibbs performed better on evaluation of partnerships with the community, identification of culturally competent data sources and target populations, and appointment of trial staff in an inclusive manner. Conclusions Comprehensive evaluation of the trial’s cultural competency required scrutiny of both published manuscripts and source and procedural data, suggesting that there is a gap in current trial reporting standards with respect to cultural competence. Trial registration PACTR201610001825403. Registered on 17 October 2016.

Abstract Background To assess the quality of reporting of RCT protocols approved by UK research ethics committees before and after the publication of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guideline. Methods We had access to RCT study protocols that received ethical approval in the UK in 2012 (n=103) and 2016 (n=108). From those, we assessed the adherence to the 33 SPIRIT items (i.e. a total of 64 components of the 33 SPIRIT items). We descriptively analysed the adherence to SPIRIT guidelines as proportion of adequately reported items (median and interquartile range [IQR]) and stratified the results by year of approval and sponsor. Results The proportion of reported SPIRIT items increased from a median of 64.9% (IQR, 57.6–69.2%) in 2012 to a median of 72.5% (IQR, 65.3–78.3%) in 2016. Industry-sponsored RCTs reported more SPIRIT items in 2012 (median 67.4%; IQR, 64.1–69.4%) compared to non-industry-sponsored trials (median 59.8%; IQR, 46.5–67.7%). This gap between industry- and non-industry-sponsored trials increased in 2016 (industry-sponsored: median 75.6%; IQR, 71.2–79.0% vs non-industry-sponsored: median 65.3%; IQR, 51.6–76.3%). Conclusions The adherence to SPIRIT guidelines has improved in the UK from 2012 to 2016 but remains on a modest level, especially for non-industry-sponsored RCTs.

Abstract Introduction Although several outcomes are commonly measured to assess the effect of surgery for young people with cerebral palsy (CP), these are selected mainly by health professionals and researchers. Including the perspectives of a broader range of stakeholders is an essential step towards determining important outcomes for assessment. This qualitative study involves the development of a core outcome set (COS) for lower limb orthopaedic surgery for ambulant children with CP. Objective This study aimed to identify outcomes that matter to children and young people with CP, their parents and healthcare professionals following lower limb orthopaedic surgery. Methods Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 10 healthcare professionals, 10 children and young people with CP and 8 parents. Interview data were analysed by content analysis supported by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF‐CY) supplemented by thematic analysis. Findings Thirty‐one outcomes were identified in total, which were linked to eleven second‐level ICF‐CY categories. There were differences between stakeholder groups in preferences and expectations from surgical outcomes. Healthcare professionals and children with their parents identified 31 and 25 outcomes, respectively. Health outcomes valued by participants were lower limb alignment and symmetry, flexibility and muscle strength, mental health, fatigue, pain, function in life, mobility, participation, being independent, quality of life and adverse events. Compared to previous published trials, 10 new outcomes were revealed by this study. Conclusion The researchers identified outcomes that are important to all stakeholders following lower limb orthopaedic surgery for ambulant CP. Including these outcomes in future studies would promote patient‐centred care for children and young adults with CP. Findings will be used to inform an international Delphi survey and develop a COS in this field. Patient and Public Contribution This study was informed by an advisory group including a young adult with CP and a parent of a child with CP. This group engaged in the design of the study and the information material to support the interview (information sheet and interview topic guide).

Objectives: The Anti-Freaze-F trial will assess the feasibility of conducting a large randomised controlled trial to assess whether intra-articular injection of anti-TNF (adalimumab) can reduce pain and improve function in people with pain predominant early stage frozen shoulder. Methods and analysis: We are conducting a multi-centre, randomised feasibility study, with an embedded qualitative sub-study. We will recruit adults ≥18 years with a new episode of shoulder pain attributable to early stage frozen shoulder, recruited from at least five UK NHS musculoskeletal and related physiotherapy services. Participants (n=84) will be randomised (centralised computer generated 1:1 allocation) to receive either: 1) intra-articular injection of anti-TNF (adalimumab 160mg) or 2) placebo injection (saline [0.9% sodium chloride]), both under ultrasound guidance. A second injection of the allocated treatment (adalimumab 80mg) or equivalent volume of placebo will be administered 2-3 weeks later. All participants will receive a physiotherapy advice leaflet providing education and advice about frozen shoulder and pain management. The primary feasibility objectives are: 1) the ability to screen and identify potential participants with pain predominant early stage frozen shoulder; 2) willingness of eligible participants to consent and be randomised to intervention; 3) practicalities of delivering the intervention, including time to first injection and number of participants receiving second injection; 4) standard deviation of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score and attrition rate at 3 months from baseline in order to estimate the sample size for a definitive trial. We will also assess follow up rates and viability of patient-reported outcome measures and range of shoulder motion for a definitive trial. Research Ethics Committee approval (REC 21/NE/0214). Trial registration number: ISRCTN 27075727; EudraCT number: 2021-003509-23; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05299242.

BackgroundJournal articles describing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews with meta-analysis of RCTs are not optimally reported and often miss crucial details. This poor reporting makes assessing these studies’ risk of bias or reproducing their results difficult. However, the reporting quality of diet- and nutrition-related RCTs and meta-analyses has not been explored. ObjectiveWe aimed to assess the reporting completeness and identify the main reporting limitations of diet- and nutrition-related RCTs and meta-analyses of RCTs, estimate the frequency of reproducible research practices among these RCTs, and estimate the frequency of distorted presentation or spin among these meta-analyses. MethodsTwo independent meta-research studies will be conducted using articles published in PubMed-indexed journals. The first will include a sample of diet- and nutrition-related RCTs; the second will include a sample of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of diet- and nutrition-related RCTs. A validated search strategy will be used to identify RCTs of nutritional interventions and an adapted strategy to identify meta-analyses in PubMed. We will search for RCTs and meta-analyses indexed in 1 calendar year and randomly select 100 RCTs (June 2021 to June 2022) and 100 meta-analyses (July 2021 to July 2022). Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts of records yielded by the searches, then read the full texts to confirm their eligibility. The general features of these published RCTs and meta-analyses will be extracted into a research electronic data capture database (REDCap; Vanderbilt University). The completeness of reporting of each RCT will be assessed using the items in the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials), its extensions, and the TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) statements. Information about practices that promote research transparency and reproducibility, such as the publication of protocols and statistical analysis plans will be collected. There will be an assessment of the completeness of reporting of each meta-analysis using the items in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement and collection of information about spin in the abstracts and full-texts. The results will be presented as descriptive statistics in diagrams or tables. These 2 meta-research studies are registered in the Open Science Framework. ResultsThe literature search for the first meta-research retrieved 20,030 records and 2182 were potentially eligible. The literature search for the second meta-research retrieved 10,918 records and 850 were potentially eligible. Among them, random samples of 100 RCTs and 100 meta-analyses were selected for data extraction. Data extraction is currently in progress, and completion is expected by the beginning of 2023. ConclusionsOur meta-research studies will summarize the main limitation on reporting completeness of nutrition- or diet-related RCTs and meta-analyses and provide comprehensive information regarding the particularities in the reporting of intervention studies in the nutrition field. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/43537

Introduction Early phase dose-finding (EPDF) studies are critical for the development of new treatments, directly influencing whether compounds or interventions can be investigated in further trials to confirm their safety and efficacy. There exists guidance for clinical trial protocols and reporting of completed trials in the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 and CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Randomised Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statements. However, neither the original statements nor their extensions adequately cover the specific features of EPDF trials. The DEFINE (DosE-FIndiNg Extensions) study aims to enhance transparency, completeness, reproducibility and interpretation of EPDF trial protocols (SPIRIT-DEFINE) and their reports once completed (CONSORT-DEFINE), across all disease areas, building on the original SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010 statements.Methods and analysis A methodological review of published EPDF trials will be conducted to identify features and deficiencies in reporting and inform the initial generation of the candidate items. The early draft checklists will be enriched through a review of published and grey literature, real-world examples analysis, citation and reference searches and consultation with international experts, including regulators and journal editors. Development of CONSORT-DEFINE commenced in March 2021, followed by SPIRIT-DEFINE from January 2022. A modified Delphi process, involving worldwide, multidisciplinary and cross-sector key stakeholders, will be run to refine the checklists. An international consensus meeting in autumn 2022 will finalise the list of items to be included in both guidance extensions.Ethics and dissemination This project was approved by ICR’s Committee for Clinical Research. The Health Research Authority confirmed Research Ethics Approval is not required. The dissemination strategy aims to maximise guideline awareness and uptake, including but not limited to dissemination in stakeholder meetings, conferences, peer-reviewed publications and on the EQUATOR Network and DEFINE study websites.Registration details SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE are registered with the EQUATOR Network.

Abstract Background External randomised pilot trials help researchers decide whether, and how, to do a future definitive randomised trial. The progression criteria are often prespecified to inform the interpretation of pilot trial findings and subsequent progression decision-making. We aimed to explore and understand the perspectives and experiences of key stakeholders when making progression decisions following external pilot trials. Methods Thirty-five remote semi-structured interviews with external randomised pilot trial team members including chief investigators, trial managers, statisticians and patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives. Questions focussed on experiences and perceptions of pilot trial progression decisions and whether and how progression criteria informed this decision. Data were analysed using the framework method approach to thematic analysis. Strategies to ensure trustworthiness and rigour were used. Results Interviews were conducted between December 2020 and July 2021. Six descriptive themes were developed to capture the experiences and perspectives of participants. These were (1) divided opinions on the value and development of progression criteria, (2) (avoiding) the potential for personal interest to influence progression criteria and progression decision-making, (3) stakeholder engagement in setting progression criteria and making progression decisions, (4) lessons learned from doing the pilot trial and their impact on progression criteria applicability, (5) other factors that inform the progression decision and (6) progression of external randomised pilot trials—funding considerations and constraints. These themes were underpinned by an overarching interpretative theme ‘a one-size approach to progression does not fit all’ to describe the highly nuanced and complex decision-making process that occurs following external randomised pilot trials. The progression criteria are rarely the only consideration informing the decision to progress to future research; unanticipated events, signals of efficacy and continuity of the research team are other factors that researchers consider. Conclusions One size does not fit all when it comes to the progression criteria and pilot trial progression. The progression criteria are only one of many considerations researchers have when deciding whether a pilot trial is feasible. External pilot trial progression is not guaranteed even when a pilot trial is considered feasible (based on the progression criteria and/or other considerations), indicating inefficiency and potential research waste. Trial registration Open Science Framework osf.io/5N2KZ

Introduction The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) reporting guideline establishes a minimum set of items to be reported in any randomised controlled trial (RCT) protocol. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) reporting guideline was developed to improve the reporting of interventions in RCT protocols and results papers. Reporting completeness in protocols of diet or nutrition-related RCTs has not been systematically investigated. We aim to identify published protocols of diet or nutrition-related RCTs, assess their reporting completeness and identify the main reporting limitations remaining in this field.Methods and analysis We will conduct a meta-research study of RCT protocols published in journals indexed in at least one of six selected databases between 2012 and 2022. We have run a search in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO and Global Health using a search strategy designed to identify protocols of diet or nutrition-related RCTs. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts of records yielded by the search in Rayyan. The full texts will then be read to confirm protocol eligibility. We will collect general study features (publication information, types of participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes and study design) of all eligible published protocols in this contemporary sample. We will assess reporting completeness in a randomly selected sample of them and identify their main reporting limitations. We will compare this subsample with the items in the SPIRIT and TIDieR statements. For all data collection, we will use data extraction forms in REDCap. This protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/YWEVS).Ethics and dissemination This study will undertake a secondary analysis of published data and does not require ethical approval. The results will be disseminated through journals and conferences targeting stakeholders involved in nutrition research.

Aims: This study aims to assess the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic, multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an informal caregiver training programme to support the recovery of people following hip fracture surgery. Methods: This will be a mixed-methods feasibility RCT, recruiting 60 patients following hip fracture surgery and their informal caregivers. Patients will be randomized to usual NHS care, versus usual NHS care plus a caregiver-patient dyad training programme (HIP HELPER). This programme will comprise of three, one-hour, one-to-one training sessions for the patient and caregiver, delivered by a nurse, physiotherapist, or occupational therapist. Training will be delivered in the hospital setting pre-patient discharge. It will include practical skills for rehabilitation such as: transfers and walking; recovery goal setting and expectations; pacing and stress management techniques; and introduction to the HIP HELPER Caregiver Workbook, which provides information on recovery, exercises, worksheets, and goal-setting plans to facilitate a ‘good’ recovery. After discharge, patients and caregivers will be supported in delivering rehabilitation through three telephone coaching sessions. Data, collected at baseline and four months post-randomization, will include: screening logs, intervention logs, fidelity checklists, quality assurance monitoring visit data, and clinical outcomes assessing quality of life, physical, emotional, adverse events, and resource use outcomes. The acceptability of the study intervention and RCT design will be explored through qualitative methods with 20 participants (patients and informal caregivers) and 12 health professionals. Discussion: A multicentre recruitment approach will provide greater external validity across population characteristics in England. The mixed-methods approach will permit in-depth examination of the intervention and trial design parameters. The findings will inform whether and how a definitive trial may be undertaken to test the effectiveness of this caregiver intervention for patients after hip fracture surgery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):909–920.

Objective The aim of the Ankle Fracture Treatment: Enhancing Rehabilitation (AFTER) study, a multicentre external pilot parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT), was to assess feasibility of a definitive trial comparing rehabilitation approaches after ankle fracture.Setting Five UK National Health Service hospitals.Participants Participants were aged 50 years and over with an ankle fracture requiring immobilisation for at least 4 weeks.Interventions Participants were allocated 1:1 via a central web-based randomisation system to: (1) best practice advice (one session of physiotherapy, up to two optional additional advice sessions) or (2) progressive exercise (up to six sessions of physiotherapy).Primary outcome measures Feasibility: (1) participation rate, (2) intervention adherence and (3) retention.Results Sixty-one of 112 (54%) eligible participants participated, exceeding progression criteria for participation of 25%. Recruitment progression criteria was 1.5 participants per site per month and 1.4 was observed. At least one intervention session was delivered for 28/30 (93%) of best practice advice and 28/31 (90%) of progressive exercise participants, exceeding the 85% progression criteria. For those providing follow-up data, the proportion of participants reporting performance of home exercises in the best practice advice and the progressive exercise groups at 3 months was 20/23 (87%) and 21/25 (84%), respectively. Mean time from injury to starting physiotherapy was 74.1 days (95% CI 53.9 to 94.1 days) for the best practice advice and 72.7 days (95% CI 54.7 to 88.9) for the progressive exercise group. Follow-up rate (6-month Olerud and Molander Ankle Score) was 28/30 (93%) for the best practice advice group and 26/31 (84%) in the progressive exercise group with an overall follow-up rate of 89%.Conclusions This pilot RCT demonstrated that a definitive trial would be feasible. The main issues to address for a definitive trial are intervention modifications to enable earlier provision of rehabilitation and ensuring similar rates of follow-up in each group.Trial registration number ISRCTN16612336.

Abstract Background A rotator cuff tear is a common disabling shoulder problem. Symptoms include pain, weakness, lack of mobility and sleep disturbance. Many patients require surgery to repair the tear; however, there is a high failure rate. There is a pressing need to improve the outcome of rotator cuff surgery. The use of patch augmentation to provide support to the healing process and improve patient outcomes holds new promise. Different materials (e.g. human/animal skin or intestine tissue, and completely synthetic materials) and processes (e.g. woven or a mesh) have been used to produce patches. However, clinical evidence on their use is limited. The patch augmented rotator cuff surgery (PARCS) feasibility study aimed to determine the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patch to augment surgical repair of the rotator cuff that is both acceptable to stakeholders and feasible. Methods A mixed methods feasibility study of conducing a subsequent RCT. The project involved six stages: a systematic review of clinical evidence; a survey of the British Elbow and Shoulder Society’s (BESS) surgical membership; a survey of surgeon trialists; focus groups and interviews with stakeholders; a two-round Delphi study administered via online questionnaires and a 2-day consensus meeting. Results The BESS surgeons’ survey identified a variety of patches in use (105 (21%) responses received). Twenty-four surgeons (77%) completed the trialist survey relating to trial design. Four focus groups were conducted involving 24 stakeholders. Twenty-nine (67% of invited) individuals took part in the Delphi. Differing views were held on a number of aspects including the appropriate patient population for trial participation. Agreement on the key research questions and the outline of two potential RCTs were achieved through the Delphi study and the consensus meeting. Conclusions Randomised comparisons of on-lay patch use for completed rotator cuff repairs, and bridging patch use for partial rotator cuff repairs were identified as areas for further research. The value of an observational study to assess safety concerns of patch use was also highlighted. The main limitation was that the findings were influenced by the participants, who might not necessarily reflect all stakeholders.

Abstract Background Use of a person’s name in a text message has been shown to be effective in instigating behaviour change. We evaluated the effectiveness of a personalised text message (including the recipient’s name) versus a standardised text message for prompting a response from trial participants to complete and return postal follow-up questionnaires. Methods Using a randomised study within a trial (SWAT) embedded within the host GRASP (Getting it Right: Addressing Shoulder Pain) trial, participants who provided a mobile telephone number were randomised (1:1) by a central computer system to receive either (1) a personalised text message which included their name or (2) a standard text message. Text messages were sent by the trial office on the same day as the 6-month GRASP follow-up questionnaire. The primary outcome was questionnaire response rate, defined as the proportion of 6-month GRASP follow-up questionnaires returned by participants. Secondary outcomes included time to response, the proportion of participants sent a reminder follow-up questionnaire, and cost. Results Between March 2017 and May 2019 (recruitment period for GRASP trial), 618 participants were randomised to a personalised (n = 309) or standard (n = 309) text message and all were included in the analysis. The overall questionnaire response rate was 87% (n = 537/618); 90% (n = 277/309) of participants responded in the personalised text message group compared to 84% (n = 260/309) in the standard text message group (relative risk (RR) 1.07; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13). Participants randomised to receive the personalised text message were more likely to return their initial postal questionnaire than those who received the standard text message (n = 185/309; 60% vs. n = 160/309; 52%) (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.33); this represents an absolute percentage difference between intervention groups of 8%. Post hoc subgroup analysis showed that males under 65 years were the group most likely to return their initial questionnaire if they received a personalised text message. Conclusion Overall, participants who received a personalised text message were more likely to return their questionnaire than those who received the standard text message. Trial registration GRASP Trial ISRCTN16539266 ; SWAT Repository ID 35

Abstract Background Pilot and feasibility studies (PAFS) often have complex objectives aimed at assessing feasibility of conducting a larger study. These may not be clear to participants in pilot studies. Methods Here, we aimed to assess the transparency of informed consent in PAFS by investigating whether researchers communicate, through patient information leaflets and consent forms, key features of the studies. We collected this data from original versions of these documents submitted for ethics approval and the final approved documents for PAFS submitted to the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board, Canada. Results One hundred eighty-four PAFS, submitted for ethics approval from 2004 to 2020, were included, and we found that of the approved consent documents which were provided to participants, 83.2% (153) stated the terms “pilot” or “feasibility” in their title, 12% (22) stated the definition of a pilot/feasibility study, 42.4% (78) of the studies stated their intent to assess feasibility, 19.6% (36) stated the specific feasibility objectives, 1.6% (3) stated the criteria for success of the pilot study, and 0.5% (1) stated all five of these criteria. After ethics review, a small increase in transparency occurred, ranging from 1.6 to 2.8% depending on the criteria. By extracting data from the protocols of the PAFS, we found that 73.9% (136) stated intent to assess feasibility, 71.2% (131) stated specific feasibility objectives, and 33.7% (62) stated criteria for success of the study to lead to a larger study. Conclusion The transparency of informed consent in PAFS is inadequate and needs to be specifically addressed by research ethics guidelines. Research ethics boards and researchers ought to be made aware and mindful of best practices of informed consent in the context of PAFS.

Objectives Comprehensive protocols are key for the planning and conduct of randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Evidence of low reporting quality of RCT protocols led to the publication of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist in 2013. We aimed to examine the quality of reporting of RCT protocols from three countries before and after the publication of the SPIRIT checklist.Design Repeated cross sectional study.Setting Swiss, German and Canadian research ethics committees (RECs).Participants RCT protocols approved by RECs in 2012 (n=257) and 2016 (n=292).Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcomes were the proportion of reported SPIRIT items per protocol and the proportion of trial protocols reporting individual SPIRIT items. We compared these outcomes in protocols approved in 2012 and 2016, and built regression models to explore factors associated with adherence to SPIRIT. For each protocol, we also extracted information on general trial characteristics and assessed whether individual SPIRIT items were reportedResults The median proportion of reported SPIRIT items among RCT protocols showed a non-significant increase from 72% (IQR, 63%–79%) in 2012 to 77% (IQR, 68%–82%) in 2016. However, in a preplanned subgroup analysis, we detected a significant improvement in investigator-sponsored protocols: the median proportion increased from 64% (IQR, 55%–72%) in 2012 to 76% (IQR, 64%–83%) in 2016, while for industry-sponsored protocols median adherence was 77% (IQR 72%–80%) for both years. The following trial characteristics were independently associated with lower adherence to SPIRIT: single-centre trial, no support from a clinical trials unit or contract research organisation, and investigator-sponsorship.Conclusions In 2012, industry-sponsored RCT protocols were reported more comprehensively than investigator-sponsored protocols. After publication of the SPIRIT checklist, investigator-sponsored protocols improved to the level of industry-sponsored protocols, which did not improve.

Objectives: The Anti-Freaze-F trial will assess the feasibility of conducting a large randomised controlled trial to assess whether intra-articular injection of anti-TNF (adalimumab) can reduce pain and improve function in people with pain predominant early stage frozen shoulder. Methods and analysis: We are conducting a multi-centre, randomised feasibility study, with an embedded qualitative sub-study. We will recruit adults ≥18 years with a new episode of shoulder pain attributable to early stage frozen shoulder, recruited from at least five UK NHS musculoskeletal and related physiotherapy services. Participants (n=84) will be randomised (centralised computer generated 1:1 allocation) to receive either: 1) intra-articular injection of anti-TNF (adalimumab 160mg) or 2) placebo injection (saline [0.9% sodium chloride]), both under ultrasound guidance. A second injection of the allocated treatment (adalimumab 80mg) or equivalent volume of placebo will be administered 2-3 weeks later. All participants will receive a physiotherapy advice leaflet providing education and advice about frozen shoulder and pain management. The primary feasibility objectives are: 1) the ability to screen and identify potential participants with pain predominant early stage frozen shoulder; 2) willingness of eligible participants to consent and be randomised to intervention; 3) practicalities of delivering the intervention, including time to first injection and number of participants receiving second injection; 4) standard deviation of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score and attrition rate at 3 months from baseline in order to estimate the sample size for a definitive trial. We will also assess follow up rates and viability of patient-reported outcome measures and range of shoulder motion for a definitive trial. Research Ethics Committee approval (REC 21/NE/0214). Trial registration number: ISRCTN 27075727; EudraCT number: 2021-003509-23; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05299242.

BackgroundWe previously found that 25% of 1,017 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) approved between 2000 and 2003 were discontinued prematurely, and 44% remained unpublished at a median of 12 years follow-up. We aimed to assess a decade later (1) whether rates of completion and publication have increased; (2) the extent to which nonpublished RCTs can be identified in trial registries; and (3) the association between reporting quality of protocols and premature discontinuation or nonpublication of RCTs.Methods and findingsWe included 326 RCT protocols approved in 2012 by research ethics committees in Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada in this metaresearch study. Pilot, feasibility, and phase 1 studies were excluded. We extracted trial characteristics from each study protocol and systematically searched for corresponding trial registration (if not reported in the protocol) and full text publications until February 2022. For trial registrations, we searched the (i) World Health Organization: International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP); (ii) US National Library of Medicine (ClinicalTrials.gov); (iii) European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EUCTR); (iv) ISRCTN registry; and (v) Google. For full text publications, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus. We recorded whether RCTs were registered, discontinued (including reason for discontinuation), and published. The reporting quality of RCT protocols was assessed with the 33-item SPIRIT checklist. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between the independent variables protocol reporting quality, planned sample size, type of control (placebo versus other), reporting of any recruitment projection, single-center versus multicenter trials, and industry versus investigator sponsoring, with the 2 dependent variables: (1) publication of RCT results; and (2) trial discontinuation due to poor recruitment. Of the 326 included trials, 19 (6%) were unregistered. Ninety-eight trials (30%) were discontinued prematurely, most often due to poor recruitment (37%; 36/98). One in 5 trials (21%; 70/326) remained unpublished at 10 years follow-up, and 21% of unpublished trials (15/70) were unregistered. Twenty-three of 147 investigator-sponsored trials (16%) reported their results in a trial registry in contrast to 150 of 179 industry-sponsored trials (84%). The median proportion of reported SPIRIT items in included RCT protocols was 69% (interquartile range 61% to 77%). We found no variables associated with trial discontinuation; however, lower reporting quality of trial protocols was associated with nonpublication (odds ratio, 0.71 for each 10% increment in the proportion of SPIRIT items met; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.92; p = 0.009). Study limitations include that the moderate sample size may have limited the ability of our regression models to identify significant associations.ConclusionsWe have observed that rates of premature trial discontinuation have not changed in the past decade. Nonpublication of RCTs has declined but remains common; 21% of unpublished trials could not be identified in registries. Only 16% of investigator-sponsored trials reported results in a trial registry. Higher reporting quality of RCT protocols was associated with publication of results. Further efforts from all stakeholders are needed to improve efficiency and transparency of clinical research.

Abstract Background Clearly structured and comprehensive protocols are an essential component to ensure safety of participants, data validity, successful conduct, and credibility of results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Funding agencies, research ethics committees (RECs), regulatory agencies, medical journals, systematic reviewers, and other stakeholders rely on protocols to appraise the conduct and reporting of RCTs. In response to evidence of poor protocol quality, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guideline was published in 2013 to improve the accuracy and completeness of clinical trial protocols. The impact of these recommendations on protocol completeness and associations between protocol completeness and successful RCT conduct and publication remain uncertain. Objectives and methods Aims of the Adherence to SPIrit REcommendations (ASPIRE) study are to investigate adherence to SPIRIT checklist items of RCT protocols approved by RECs in the UK, Switzerland, Germany, and Canada before (2012) and after (2016) the publication of the SPIRIT guidelines; determine protocol features associated with non-adherence to SPIRIT checklist items; and assess potential differences in adherence across countries. We assembled an international cohort of RCTs based on 450 protocols approved in 2012 and 402 protocols approved in 2016 by RECs in Switzerland, the UK, Germany, and Canada. We will extract data on RCT characteristics and adherence to SPIRIT for all included protocols. We will use multivariable regression models to investigate temporal changes in SPIRIT adherence, differences across countries, and associations between SPIRIT adherence of protocols with RCT registration, completion, and publication of results. We plan substudies to examine the registration, premature discontinuation, and non-publication of RCTs; the use of patient-reported outcomes in RCT protocols; SPIRIT adherence of RCT protocols with non-regulated interventions; the planning of RCT subgroup analyses; and the use of routinely collected data for RCTs. Discussion The ASPIRE study and associated substudies will provide important information on the impact of measures to improve the reporting of RCT protocols and on multiple aspects of RCT design, trial registration, premature discontinuation, and non-publication of RCTs observing potential changes over time.

Abstract Background The Getting it Right: Addressing Shoulder Pain (GRASP) trial assesses the clinical and cost-effectiveness of individually tailored, progressive exercise compared with best practice advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, in adults with a rotator cuff disorder. This article describes the statistical analysis plan for the GRASP randomised controlled trial. Methods/design GRASP is a multicentre randomised controlled trial using a 2 × 2 factorial design. Adults aged ≥ 18 years with a new episode of shoulder pain related to a rotator cuff disorder, not currently receiving physiotherapy or being considered for surgery, are randomised (centralised computer-generated 1:1:1:1 allocation ratio) to one of four interventions: (1) progressive exercise (up to 6 physiotherapy sessions), (2) best practice advice (one physiotherapy session), (3) subacromial corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise and (4) subacromial corticosteroid injection then best practice advice. The primary outcome is the mean difference in Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) total score over 12 months. Secondary outcomes are as follows: pain and function SPADI subdomains, health-related quality of life (EuroQol EQ-5D-5L), sleep disturbance, return to activity, global impression of change, health resource use, out-of-pocket expenses and work disability. Here, we describe in detail the following: sample size calculation, descriptive statistics of the primary and secondary outcomes, statistical models used for the analysis of the main outcomes, handling of missing data, planned sensitivity and subgroup analyses. This pre-specified statistical analysis plan was written and submitted without prior knowledge of the trial results. Discussion Publication of the statistical analysis plan for the GRASP trial aims to reduce the risk of outcome reporting bias and increase transparency of the data analysis. Any deviations or changes to the current SAP will be described and justified in the final study report and any results publications. Trial registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN16539266 . Registered on 14 June 2016. EudraCT number 2016-002991-28. Registered on 12 June 2016.

Abstract Background Poor recruitment of patients is the predominant reason for early termination of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Systematic empirical investigations and validation studies of existing recruitment models, however, are lacking. We aim to provide evidence-based guidance on how to predict and monitor recruitment of patients into RCTs. Our specific objectives are the following: (1) to establish a large sample of RCTs (target n = 300) with individual patient recruitment data from a large variety of RCTs, (2) to investigate participant recruitment patterns and study site recruitment patterns and their association with the overall recruitment process, (3) to investigate the validity of a freely available recruitment model, and (4) to develop a user-friendly tool to assist trial investigators in the planning and monitoring of the recruitment process. Methods Eligible RCTs need to have completed the recruitment process, used a parallel group design, and investigated any healthcare intervention where participants had the free choice to participate. To establish the planned sample of RCTs, we will use our contacts to national and international RCT networks, clinical trial units, and individual trial investigators. From included RCTs, we will collect patient-level information (date of randomization), site-level information (date of trial site activation), and trial-level information (target sample size). We will examine recruitment patterns using recruitment trajectories and stratifications by RCT characteristics. We will investigate associations of early recruitment patterns with overall recruitment by correlation and multivariable regression. To examine the validity of a freely available Bayesian prediction model, we will compare model predictions to collected empirical data of included RCTs. Finally, we will user-test any promising tool using qualitative methods for further tool improvement. Discussion This research will contribute to a better understanding of participant recruitment to RCTs, which could enhance efficiency and reduce the waste of resources in clinical research with a comprehensive, concerted, international effort.

Abstract Background There are a growing number of studies using mediation analysis to understand the mechanisms of health interventions and exposures. Recent work has shown that the reporting of these studies is heterogenous and incomplete. This problem stifles clinical application, reproducibility, and evidence synthesis. This paper describes the processes and methods that will be used to develop a guideline for reporting studies of mediation analyses (AGReMA). Methods/design AGReMA will be developed over five overlapping stages. Stage one will comprise a systematic review to examine relevant evidence on the quality of reporting in published studies that use mediation analysis. In the second stage we will consult a group of methodologists and applied researchers by using a Delphi process to identify items that should be considered for inclusion in AGReMA. The third stage will involve a consensus meeting to consolidate and prioritise key items to be included in AGReMA. The fourth stage will involve the production of AGReMA and an accompanying explanation and elaboration document. In the final stage we will disseminate the AGReMA statement via journals, conferences, and professional meetings across multiple disciplines. Discussion The development and implementation of AGReMA will improve the standardization, transparency, and completeness in the reporting of studies that use mediation analysis to understand the mechanisms of health interventions and exposures.

Objectives To identify: (1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to evaluate symptoms, health status or quality of life following discretionary revision (or re-revision) knee joint replacement, and (2) validated joint-specific PROMs, their measurement properties and quality of evidence.Design (1) Scoping review; (2) systematic review following the COnsensus-based Standards for selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 1 July 2020 using the Oxford PROM filter unlimited by publication date or language.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies reporting on the development, validation or outcome of a joint-specific PROM for revision knee joint replacement were included.Results 51 studies reported PROM outcomes using eight joint-specific PROMs. 27 out of 51 studies (52.9%) were published within the last 5 years. PROM development was rated ‘inadequate’ for each of the eight PROMs studied. Validation studies were available for only three joint-specific PROMs: Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lower Extremity Activity Scale (LEAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). 25 out of 27 (92.6%) measurement properties were rated insufficient, indeterminate or not assessed. The quality of supporting evidence was mostly low or very low. Each of the validated PROMs was rated ‘B’ (potential for recommendation but require further evaluation).Conclusion Joint-specific PROMs are increasingly used to report outcomes following revision knee joint replacement, but these instruments have insufficient evidence for their validity. Future research should be directed toward understanding the measurement properties of these instruments in order to inform clinical trials and observational studies evaluating the outcomes from joint-specific PROMs.

Background: Rotator cuff-related shoulder pain is very common, but there is uncertainty regarding which modes of exercise delivery are optimal and the long-term benefits of corticosteroid injections. Objectives: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of progressive exercise compared with best-practice physiotherapy advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, in adults with a rotator cuff disorder. Design: This was a pragmatic multicentre superiority randomised controlled trial (with a 2 × 2 factorial design). Setting: Twenty NHS primary care-based musculoskeletal and related physiotherapy services. Participants: Adults aged ≥ 18 years with a new episode of rotator cuff-related shoulder pain in the previous 6 months. Interventions: A total of 708 participants were randomised (March 2017–May 2019) by a centralised computer-generated 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 allocation ratio to one of four interventions: (1) progressive exercise (n = 174) (six or fewer physiotherapy sessions), (2) best-practice advice (n = 174) (one physiotherapy session), (3) corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise (n = 182) (six or fewer physiotherapy sessions) or (4) corticosteroid injection then best-practice advice (n = 178) (one physiotherapy session). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score over 12 months. Secondary outcomes included SPADI subdomains, the EuroQol 5 Dimensions, five-level version, sleep disturbance, fear avoidance, pain self-efficacy, return to activity, Global Impression of Treatment and health resource use. Outcomes were collected by postal questionnaires at 8 weeks and at 6 and 12 months. A within-trial economic evaluation was also conducted. The primary analysis was intention to treat. Results: Participants had a mean age of 55.5 (standard deviation 13.1) years and 49.3% were female. The mean baseline SPADI score was 54.1 (standard deviation 18.5). Follow-up rates were 91% at 8 weeks and 87% at 6 and 12 months. There was an overall improvement in SPADI score from baseline in each group over time. Over 12 months, there was no evidence of a difference in the SPADI scores between the progressive exercise intervention and the best-practice advice intervention in shoulder pain and function (adjusted mean difference between groups over 12 months –0.66, 99% confidence interval –4.52 to 3.20). There was also no difference in SPADI scores between the progressive exercise intervention and best-practice advice intervention when analysed at the 8-week and 6- and 12-month time points. Injection resulted in improvement in shoulder pain and function at 8 weeks compared with no injection (adjusted mean difference –5.64, 99% confidence interval –9.93 to –1.35), but not when analysed over 12 months (adjusted mean difference –1.11, 99% confidence interval –4.47 to 2.26), or at 6 and 12 months. There were no serious adverse events. In the base-case analysis, adding injection to best-practice advice gained 0.021 quality-adjusted life-years (p = 0.184) and increased the cost by £10 per participant (p = 0.747). Progressive exercise alone was £52 (p = 0.247) more expensive per participant than best-practice advice, and gained 0.019 QALYs (p = 0.220). At a ceiling ratio of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, injection plus best-practice advice had a 54.93% probability of being the most cost-effective treatment. Limitations: Participants and physiotherapists were not blinded to group allocation. Twelve-month follow-up may be insufficient for identifying all safety concerns. Conclusions: Progressive exercise was not superior to a best-practice advice session with a physiotherapist. Subacromial corticosteroid injection improved shoulder pain and function, but provided only modest short-term benefit. Best-practice advice in combination with corticosteroid injection was expected to be most cost-effective, although there was substantial uncertainty. Future work: Longer-term follow-up, including any serious adverse effects of corticosteroid injection. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16539266 and EudraCT 2016-002991-28. 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. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Objectives Prespecified progression criteria can inform the decision to progress from an external randomised pilot trial to a definitive randomised controlled trial. We assessed the characteristics of progression criteria reported in external randomised pilot trial protocols and results publications, including whether progression criteria were specified a priori and mentioned in prepublication peer reviewer reports.Study design Methodological review.Methods We searched four journals through PubMed: British Medical Journal Open, Pilot and Feasibility Studies, Trials and Public Library of Science One. Eligible publications reported external randomised pilot trial protocols or results, were published between January 2018 and December 2019 and reported progression criteria. We double data extracted 25% of the included publications. Here we report the progression criteria characteristics.Results We included 160 publications (123 protocols and 37 completed trials). Recruitment and retention were the most frequent indicators contributing to progression criteria. Progression criteria were mostly reported as distinct thresholds (eg, achieving a specific target; 133/160, 83%). Less than a third of the planned and completed pilot trials that included qualitative research reported how these findings would contribute towards progression criteria (34/108, 31%). The publications seldom stated who established the progression criteria (12/160, 7.5%) or provided rationale or justification for progression criteria (44/160, 28%). Most completed pilot trials reported the intention to proceed to a definitive trial (30/37, 81%), but less than half strictly met all of their progression criteria (17/37, 46%). Prepublication peer reviewer reports were available for 153/160 publications (96%). Peer reviewer reports for 86/153 (56%) publications mentioned progression criteria, with peer reviewers of 35 publications commenting that progression criteria appeared not to be specified.Conclusions Many external randomised pilot trial publications did not adequately report or propose prespecified progression criteria to inform whether to proceed to a future definitive randomised controlled trial.

Abstract Background The peer review process has been questioned as it may fail to allow the publication of high-quality articles. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting in RCT reports by early career researchers (ECRs) using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process. Methods We performed a cross-sectional diagnostic study of 119 manuscripts, from BMC series medical journals, BMJ, BMJ Open, and Annals of Emergency Medicine reporting the results of two-arm parallel-group RCTs. One hundred and nineteen ECRs who had never reviewed an RCT manuscript were recruited from December 2017 to January 2018. Each ECR assessed one manuscript. To assess accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting, we used two tests: (1) ECRs assessing a manuscript using the COBPeer tool (after completing an online training module) and (2) the usual peer-review process. The reference standard was the assessment of the manuscript by two systematic reviewers. Inadequate reporting was defined as incomplete reporting or a switch in primary outcome and considered nine domains: the eight most important CONSORT domains and a switch in primary outcome(s). The primary outcome was the mean number of domains accurately classified (scale from 0 to 9). Results The mean (SD) number of domains (0 to 9) accurately classified per manuscript was 6.39 (1.49) for ECRs using COBPeer versus 5.03 (1.84) for the journal’s usual peer-review process, with a mean difference [95% CI] of 1.36 [0.88–1.84] (p

Abstract Background A rotator cuff tear is a common disabling shoulder problem. Symptoms include pain, weakness, lack of shoulder mobility and sleep disturbance. Many patients require surgery to repair the tear; however, there is a high failure rate. There is a pressing need to improve the outcome of rotator cuff surgery and the use of patch augmentation to provide support to the healing process and improve patient outcomes holds new promise. Patches have been made using different materials (e.g. human/animal skin or intestine tissue, and completely synthetic materials) and processes (e.g. woven or a mesh). However, clinical evidence on their use is limited. The aim of the patch-augmented rotator cuff surgery (PARCS) feasibility study is to determine, using a mixed method approach, the design of a definitive randomised trial assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patch to augment surgical repair of the rotator cuff that is both acceptable to stakeholders and feasible. Methods The objectives of this six-stage mixed methods feasibility study are to determine current practice, evidence and views about patch use; achieve consensus on the design of a randomised trial to evaluate patch-augmented rotator cuff surgery; and assess the acceptability and feasibility of the proposed design. The six stages will involve a systematic review of clinical evidence, two surveys of surgeons, focus groups and interviews with stakeholders, a Delphi study and a consensus meeting. The various stakeholders (including patients, surgeons, and representatives from industry, the NHS and regulatory bodies) will be involved across the six stages. Discussion The PARCS feasibility study will inform the feasibility and acceptability of a randomised trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patch-augmented rotator cuff surgery. Consensus opinion on the basic design of a randomised trial will be sought. Trial registration Not applicable.

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 I2

Background: A rotator cuff tear is a common, disabling shoulder problem. Symptoms may include pain, weakness, lack of shoulder mobility and sleep disturbance. Many patients require surgery to repair the tear; however, there is a high failure rate. There is a need to improve the outcome of rotator cuff surgery, and the use of patch augmentation (on-lay or bridging) to provide support to the healing process and improve patient outcomes holds promise. Patches have been made using different materials (e.g. human/animal skin or tissue and synthetic materials) and processes (e.g. woven or mesh). Objectives: The aim of the Patch Augmented Rotator Cuff Surgery (PARCS) feasibility study was to determine the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patch to augment surgical repair of the rotator cuff that is both acceptable to stakeholders and feasible. Design: A mixed-methods feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were searched between April 2006 and August 2018. Methods: The project involved six stages: a systematic review of clinical evidence, a survey of the British Elbow and Shoulder Society’s surgical membership, a survey of surgeon triallists, focus groups and interviews with stakeholders, a two-round Delphi study administered via online questionnaires and a 2-day consensus meeting. The various stakeholders (including patients, surgeons and industry representatives) were involved in stages 2–6. Results: The systematic review comprised 52 studies; only 15 were comparative and, of these, 11 were observational (search conducted in August 2018). These studies were typically small (median number of participants 26, range 5–152 participants). There was some evidence to support the use of patches, although most comparative studies were at a serious risk of bias. Little to no published clinical evidence was available for a number of patches in clinical use. The membership survey of British Elbow and Shoulder surgeons [105 (21%) responses received] identified a variety of patches in use. Twenty-four surgeons (77%) completed the triallist survey relating to trial design. Four focus groups were conducted, involving 24 stakeholders. Differing views were held on a number of aspects of trial design, including the appropriate patient population (e.g. patient age) to participate. Agreement on the key research questions and the outline of two potential randomised controlled trials were achieved through the Delphi study [29 (67%)] and the consensus meeting that 22 participants attended. Limitations: The main limitation was that the findings were influenced by the participants, who are not necessarily representative of the views of the relevant stakeholder groups. Conclusion: The need for further clinical studies was clear, particularly given the range and number of different patches available. Future work: Randomised comparisons of on-lay patch use for completed rotator cuff repairs and bridging patch use for partial rotator cuff repairs were identified as areas for further research. The value of an observational study to assess safety concerns of patch use was also highlighted. These elements are included in the trial designs proposed in this study. Study registration: The systematic review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017057908. 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. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BackgroundPlacebo or sham controls are the standard against which the benefits and harms of many active interventions are measured. Whilst the components and the method of their delivery have been shown to affect study outcomes, placebo and sham controls are rarely reported and often not matched to those of the active comparator. This can influence how beneficial or harmful the active intervention appears to be. Without adequate descriptions of placebo or sham controls, it is difficult to interpret results about the benefits and harms of active interventions within placebo-controlled trials. To overcome this problem, we developed a checklist and guide for reporting placebo or sham interventions.Methods and findingsWe developed an initial list of items for the checklist by surveying experts in placebo research (n = 14). Because of the diverse contexts in which placebo or sham treatments are used in clinical research, we consulted experts in trials of drugs, surgery, physiotherapy, acupuncture, and psychological interventions. We then used a multistage online Delphi process with 53 participants to determine which items were deemed to be essential. We next convened a group of experts and stakeholders (n = 16). Our main output was a modification of the existing Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist; this allows the key features of both active interventions and placebo or sham controls to be concisely summarised by researchers. The main differences between TIDieR-Placebo and the original TIDieR are the explicit requirement to describe the setting (i.e., features of the physical environment that go beyond geographic location), the need to report whether blinding was successful (when this was measured), and the need to present the description of placebo components alongside those of the active comparator.ConclusionsWe encourage TIDieR-Placebo to be used alongside TIDieR to assist the reporting of placebo or sham components and the trials in which they are used.

Introduction Pilot/feasibility studies assess the feasibility of conducting a larger study. Although researchers ought to communicate the feasibility objectives to their participants, many research ethics guidelines do not comment on how informed consent applies to pilot studies. It is unclear whether researchers and research ethics boards clearly communicate the purpose of pilot studies to participants consenting.The primary objective of this study is to assess whether pilot/feasibility studies submitted for ethics approval to a research ethics board transparently communicate the purpose of the study to participants through their informed consent practice. A highly transparent consent practice entails the consent documents communicate: (1) the term ‘pilot’ or ‘feasibility’ in the title; (2) the definition of a pilot/feasibility study; (3) the primary objectives of the study are to assess feasibility; (4) the specific feasibility objectives; and (5) the criteria for the study to successfully lead to the main study. The secondary objectives are to assess whether there is a difference between submitted and revised versions of the consent documents (revisions are made to obtain research ethics approval), to determine factors associated with transparent consent practices and to assess the consistency with which pilot and feasibility studies assess feasibility outcomes as their primary objectives.Methods and analysis This is a retrospective review of informed consent information for pilot/feasibility studies submitted to the Hamilton integrated Research Ethics Board, Canada. We will look at submitted and revised consent documents for pilot/feasibility studies submitted over a 14-year period. We will use descriptive statistics to summarise data, reporting results as percentages with 95% CIs, and conduct logistic regression to determine characteristics associated with transparent consent practices.Ethics and dissemination The study protocol was approved by the Hamilton integrated Research Ethics Board, and the results of this study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Introduction The Roy adaptation model provides a basis for developing the science of nursing. Its theoretical assumptions have been tested in empirical studies. Although several works have historically reviewed the development of this model, a refinement of its key concepts is needed. The proposed scoping review aims to describe how the concept of adaptation was defined and measured in nursing studies related to chronic health conditions.Methods and analysis This scoping review will adopt the methodology proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. Several databases, including MEDLINE (OVID), CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed, Wan Fang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and VIP net, will be selected and used to mine literature published in English and Chinese languages, up to December 2019. Key terms related to ‘Roy adaptation model’ will be identified and used for developing tailored search strategies for each database. Articles will be included in the analysis if they are primary research reports explaining the concept of adaptation within the field of chronic care. All screening and extraction of literature will be independently performed and checked by two authors, according to the guideline of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis-Extension for Scoping Reviews. The findings will be organised and summarised into narratives in line with the construction of conceptual–theoretical–empirical system of knowledge for further consultation and translation.Ethics and dissemination This scoping review does not require ethical approval. The findings are expected to be published in peer-reviewed English or Chinese journals as well as conference proceedings in the area of chronic care.

IntroductionMusculoskeletal deformities and gait deviations are common features in ambulatory cerebral palsy (CP). Deformity correction through lower limb orthopaedic surgery is the standard form of care aimed at improving or preserving motor function. Current research on CP care does not always take into account individual patients’ expectations and needs. There is a wide range of outcome domains and outcome measures used to assess outcome from treatment. This can lead to reporting bias and make it difficult to compare and contrast studies. A core outcome set (COS) would enhance the efficiency, relevance and overall quality of CP orthopaedic surgery research. The aim of this study is to establish a standardised COS for use in evaluating lower limb orthopaedic surgery for ambulatory children and young people with CP.Methods/analysisA set of outcomes domains and outcome measures will be developed as follows: (1) a qualitative evidence synthesis to identify relevant outcomes from children and young people and family perspective; (2) a scoping review to identify relevant outcomes and outcome measures; (3) qualitative research to explore the experience of key stakeholders; (4) prioritisation of outcome domains will be achieved through a two-round Delphi process with key stakeholders; (5) a final COS will be developed at a consensus meeting with representation from key stakeholder groups.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for this study was granted in the UK by the Oxfordshire Research Ethics Committee B (REC reference 19/SC/0357). Informed consent will be obtained from participants taking part in the qualitative research and Delphi process. Study findings will be published in an open access journal and presented at relevant national and international conferences. Charities and associations will be engaged to promote awareness of the project COS results.Trial registration numberCOMET registration: 1236.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018089538.

Abstract Background Shoulder pain is a common problem in the general population and is responsible for prolonged periods of disability, loss of productivity, absence from work and inability to carry out household activities. Rotator cuff problems account for up to 70% of shoulder pain problems and are the third most prevalent musculoskeletal disorder after those occurring in the lower back and neck. Rotator cuff surgery has high failure rates (25–50% within 12 months), and as a result, there is a pressing need to improve the outcome of rotator cuff surgery. Patch augmented surgery for rotator cuff repairs has recently been developed and is increasingly being used within the UK National Health Service. Patch augmented surgery could lead to a dramatic improvement in patient and surgical outcomes, but its clinical and cost effectiveness needs rigorous evaluation. The existing evidence on the use of patches may be at risk of bias as currently only a small number of single-centre comparative studies appear to have been carried out. Additionally, it is unclear for which patches a clinical study (comparative and non-comparative) has been conducted. This paper outlines the protocol for a systematic review intended to summarise the best available clinical evidence and will indicate what further research is required. Methods Electronic databases (Medline, Embase and Cochrane) will be systematically searched between April 2006 and the present day for relevant publications using a specified search strategy, which can be adapted for the use in multiple electronic databases, and inclusion criteria. Screening of both titles and abstracts will be done by two independent reviewers with any discrepancies resolved by a third independent reviewer. Data extraction will include information regarding the type of participants, type of intervention and outcomes including but not limited to shoulder-specific function and pain scores, patch-related adverse events and type of study. The results will be summarised in a narrative review where qualitative analysis is not possible. Discussion This review aims to collate the current evidence base regarding the use of patches to augment rotator cuff repair. The results of this review will help to develop, using consensus methods, the design of a definitive randomised trial assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a patch to augment surgical repair of the rotator cuff that is both acceptable to stakeholders and is feasible. Systematic review registration CRD42017057908

Abstract Background Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are used to evaluate social and psychological interventions and inform policy decisions about them. Accurate, complete, and transparent reports of social and psychological intervention RCTs are essential for understanding their design, conduct, results, and the implications of the findings. However, the reporting of RCTs of social and psychological interventions remains suboptimal. The CONSORT Statement has improved the reporting of RCTs in biomedicine. A similar high-quality guideline is needed for the behavioural and social sciences. Our objective was to develop an official extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 Statement (CONSORT 2010) for reporting RCTs of social and psychological interventions: CONSORT-SPI 2018. Methods We followed best practices in developing the reporting guideline extension. First, we conducted a systematic review of existing reporting guidelines. We then conducted an online Delphi process including 384 international participants. In March 2014, we held a 3-day consensus meeting of 31 experts to determine the content of a checklist specifically targeting social and psychological intervention RCTs. Experts discussed previous research and methodological issues of particular relevance to social and psychological intervention RCTs. They then voted on proposed modifications or extensions of items from CONSORT 2010. Results The CONSORT-SPI 2018 checklist extends 9 of the 25 items from CONSORT 2010: background and objectives, trial design, participants, interventions, statistical methods, participant flow, baseline data, outcomes and estimation, and funding. In addition, participants added a new item related to stakeholder involvement, and they modified aspects of the flow diagram related to participant recruitment and retention. Conclusions Authors should use CONSORT-SPI 2018 to improve reporting of their social and psychological intervention RCTs. Journals should revise editorial policies and procedures to require use of reporting guidelines by authors and peer reviewers to produce manuscripts that allow readers to appraise study quality, evaluate the applicability of findings to their contexts, and replicate effective interventions.

Abstract Background The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement was developed to help biomedical researchers report randomised controlled trials (RCTs) transparently. We have developed an extension to the CONSORT 2010 Statement for social and psychological interventions (CONSORT-SPI 2018) to help behavioural and social scientists report these studies transparently. Methods Following a systematic review of existing reporting guidelines, we conducted an online Delphi process to prioritise the list of potential items for the CONSORT-SPI 2018 checklist identified from the systematic review. Of 384 international participants, 321 (84%) participated in both rating rounds. We then held a consensus meeting of 31 scientists, journal editors, and research funders (March 2014) to finalise the content of the CONSORT-SPI 2018 checklist and flow diagram. Results CONSORT-SPI 2018 extends 9 items (14 including sub-items) from the CONSORT 2010 checklist, adds a new item (with 3 sub-items) related to stakeholder involvement in trials, and modifies the CONSORT 2010 flow diagram. This Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document is a user manual to enhance understanding of CONSORT-SPI 2018. It discusses the meaning and rationale for each checklist item and provides examples of complete and transparent reporting. Conclusions The CONSORT-SPI 2018 Extension, this E&E document, and the CONSORT website (www.consort-statement.org) are helpful resources for improving the reporting of social and psychological intervention RCTs.

Abstract Background Selective reporting of outcomes in clinical trials is a serious problem. We aimed to investigate the influence of the peer review process within biomedical journals on reporting of primary outcome(s) and statistical analyses within reports of randomised trials. Methods Each month, PubMed (May 2014 to April 2015) was searched to identify primary reports of randomised trials published in six high-impact general and 12 high-impact specialty journals. The corresponding author of each trial was invited to complete an online survey asking authors about changes made to their manuscript as part of the peer review process. Our main outcomes were to assess: (1) the nature and extent of changes as part of the peer review process, in relation to reporting of the primary outcome(s) and/or primary statistical analysis; (2) how often authors followed these requests; and (3) whether this was related to specific journal or trial characteristics. Results Of 893 corresponding authors who were invited to take part in the online survey 258 (29%) responded. The majority of trials were multicentre (n = 191; 74%); median sample size 325 (IQR 138 to 1010). The primary outcome was clearly defined in 92% (n = 238), of which the direction of treatment effect was statistically significant in 49%. The majority responded (1–10 Likert scale) they were satisfied with the overall handling (mean 8.6, SD 1.5) and quality of peer review (mean 8.5, SD 1.5) of their manuscript. Only 3% (n = 8) said that the editor or peer reviewers had asked them to change or clarify the trial’s primary outcome. However, 27% (n = 69) reported they were asked to change or clarify the statistical analysis of the primary outcome; most had fulfilled the request, the main motivation being to improve the statistical methods (n = 38; 55%) or avoid rejection (n = 30; 44%). Overall, there was little association between authors being asked to make this change and the type of journal, intervention, significance of the primary outcome, or funding source. Thirty-six percent (n = 94) of authors had been asked to include additional analyses that had not been included in the original manuscript; in 77% (n = 72) these were not pre-specified in the protocol. Twenty-three percent (n = 60) had been asked to modify their overall conclusion, usually (n = 53; 88%) to provide a more cautious conclusion. Conclusion Overall, most changes, as a result of the peer review process, resulted in improvements to the published manuscript; there was little evidence of a negative impact in terms of post hoc changes of the primary outcome. However, some suggested changes might be considered inappropriate, such as unplanned additional analyses, and should be discouraged.

Background: Shoulder dislocations are the most common joint dislocations seen in emergency departments. Most traumatic cases are anterior and cause recurrent dislocations. Management options include surgical and conservative treatments. There is a lack of evidence about which method is most effective after the first traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation (TASD). Objectives: To produce UK age- and sex-specific incidence rates for TASD. To assess whether or not surgery within 6 months of a first-time TASD decreases re-dislocation rates compared with no surgery. To identify clinical predictors of recurrent dislocation. Design: A population-based cohort study of first-time TASD patients in the UK. An initial validation study and subsequent propensity-score-matched analysis to compare re-dislocation rates between surgery and no surgery after a first-time TASD. Prediction modelling was used to identify potential predictors of recurrent dislocation. Setting: UK primary and secondary care data. Participants: Patients with a first-time TASD between 1997 and 2015. Interventions: Stabilisation surgery within 6 months of a first-time TASD (compared with no surgery). Stabilisation surgery within 12 months of a first-time TASD was also carried out as a sensitivity analysis. Main outcome measure: Re-dislocation rate up to 2 years after the first TASD. Methods: Eligible patients were identified from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) (1997–2015). Accuracy of shoulder dislocation coding was internally validated using the CPRD General Practitioner questionnaire service. UK age- and sex-specific incidence rates for TASD were externally validated against rates from the USA and Canada. A propensity-score-matched analysis using linked CPRD and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data compared re-dislocation rates for patients aged 16–35 years, comparing surgery with no surgery. Multivariable Cox regression models for predicting re-dislocation were developed for the surgical and non-surgical cohorts. Results: Shoulder dislocation was coded correctly for 89% of cases in the CPRD [95% confidence interval (CI) 83% to 95%], with a ‘primary’ dislocation confirmed for 76% of cases (95% CI 67% to 85%). Far fewer patients than expected received stabilisation surgery within 6 months of a first TASD, leading to an underpowered study. Around 20% of re-dislocation rates were observed for both surgical and non-surgical patients. The sensitivity analysis at 12 months also showed little difference in re-dislocation rates. Missing data on risk factors limited the value of the prediction modelling; however, younger age, epilepsy and sex (male) were identified as statistically significant predictors of re-dislocation. Limitations: Far fewer than the expected number of patients had surgery after a first-time TASD, resulting in an underpowered study. This and residual confounding from missing risk factors mean that it is not possible to draw valid conclusions. Conclusions: This study provides, for the first time, UK data on the age- and sex-specific incidence rates for TASD. Most TASD occurs in men, but an unexpected increased incidence was observed in women aged > 50 years. Surgery after a first-time TASD is uncommon in the NHS. Re-dislocation rates for patients receiving surgery after their first TASD are higher than previously expected; however, important residual confounding risk factors were not recorded in NHS primary and secondary care databases, thus preventing useful recommendations. Future work: The high incidence of TASD justifies investigation into preventative measures for young men participating in contact sports, as well as investigating the risk factors in women aged > 50 years. A randomised controlled trial would account for key confounders missing from CPRD and HES data. A national TASD registry would allow for a more relevant data capture for this patient group. Study registration: Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC) for the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (ISAC protocol 15_0260). Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Background and study aims Investigations for lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) include flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, computed tomographic angiography (CTA), and angiography. All may be used to direct endoscopic, radiological or surgical treatment, although their optimal use is unknown. The aims of this study were to determine the diagnostic and therapeutic yields of endoscopy, CTA, and angiography for managing LGIB, and their influence on rebleeding, transfusion, and hospital stay. Patients and methods A systematic search of MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies of intervention (NRSIs) published between 2000 and 12 November 2015 in patients hospitalized with LGIB. Separate meta-analyses were conducted, presented as pooled odds (ORs) or risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Results Two RCTs and 13 NRSIs were included, none of which examined flexible sigmoidoscopy, or compared endotherapy with embolization, or investigated the timing of CTA or angiography. Two NRSIs (57 – 223 participants) comparing colonoscopy and CTA were of insufficient quality for synthesis but showed no difference in diagnostic yields between the two interventions. One RCT and 4 NRSIs (779 participants) compared early colonoscopy (

We describe a framework for defining pilot and feasibility studies focusing on studies conducted in preparation for a randomised controlled trial. To develop the framework, we undertook a Delphi survey; ran an open meeting at a trial methodology conference; conducted a review of definitions outside the health research context; consulted experts at an international consensus meeting; and reviewed 27 empirical pilot or feasibility studies. We initially adopted mutually exclusive definitions of pilot and feasibility studies. However, some Delphi survey respondents and the majority of open meeting attendees disagreed with the idea of mutually exclusive definitions. Their viewpoint was supported by definitions outside the health research context, the use of the terms 'pilot' and 'feasibility' in the literature, and participants at the international consensus meeting. In our framework, pilot studies are a subset of feasibility studies, rather than the two being mutually exclusive. A feasibility study asks whether something can be done, should we proceed with it, and if so, how. A pilot study asks the same questions but also has a specific design feature: in a pilot study a future study, or part of a future study, is conducted on a smaller scale. We suggest that to facilitate their identification, these studies should be clearly identified using the terms 'feasibility' or 'pilot' as appropriate. This should include feasibility studies that are largely qualitative; we found these difficult to identify in electronic searches because researchers rarely used the term 'feasibility' in the title or abstract of such studies. Investigators should also report appropriate objectives and methods related to feasibility; and give clear confirmation that their study is in preparation for a future randomised controlled trial designed to assess the effect of an intervention.

Elaine Beller and colleagues from the PRISMA for Abstracts group provide a reporting guidelines for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in journals and at conferences.