Search

Background: Corticosteroids and antiviral agents are widely used to treat the early stages of idiopathic facial paralysis (i.e., Bell's palsy), but their effectiveness is uncertain.Methods: We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, factorial trial involving patients with Bell's palsy who were recruited within 72 hours after the onset of symptoms. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 10 days of treatment with prednisolone, acyclovir, both agents, or placebo. The primary outcome was recovery of facial function, as rated on the House-Brackmann scale. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, appearance, and pain.Results: Final outcomes were assessed for 496 of 551 patients who underwent randomization. At 3 months, the proportions of patients who had recovered facial function were 83.0% in the prednisolone group as compared with 63.6% among patients who did not receive prednisolone (P<0.001) and 71.2% in the acyclovir group as compared with 75.7% among patients who did not receive acyclovir (adjusted P=0.50). After 9 months, these proportions were 94.4% for prednisolone and 81.6% for no prednisolone (P<0.001) and 85.4% for acyclovir and 90.8% for no acyclovir (adjusted P=0.10). For patients treated with both drugs, the proportions were 79.7% at 3 months (P<0.001) and 92.7% at 9 months (P<0.001). There were no clinically significant differences between the treatment groups in secondary outcomes. There were no serious adverse events in any group.Conclusions: In patients with Bell's palsy, early treatment with prednisolone significantly improves the chances of complete recovery at 3 and 9 months. There is no evidence of a benefit of acyclovir given alone or an additional benefit of acyclovir in combination with prednisolone. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN71548196 [controlled-trials.com].). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health surveillance initiatives targeted at populations evacuated from, and residing in, areas affected by radiation contamination were implemented by international institutions as well as national and local governments after the nuclear accidents of Chernobyl and Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plants. Most of these initiatives included a component of childhood thyroid cancer monitoring, with the more comprehensive schemes corresponding to national programmes of health monitoring for adults and children around general health and wellbeing. This article provides a short overview of available data on the costs and resources associated with surveillance responses to two recent nuclear accidents: Chernobyl and the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant accidents. Moreover, because the balance of costs and benefits of health surveillance after a nuclear accident can influence decisions on implementation, we also present a brief overview of the principles of economic evaluation for collecting and presenting data on costs and outcomes of a surveillance programme after a nuclear accident. We apply these principles in a balance sheet analysis of a post-accident ultrasound thyroid screening programme for children., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The randomised controlled trial is widely considered to be the gold standard study for comparing the effectiveness of health interventions. Central to its design is a calculation of the number of participants needed (the sample size) for the trial. The sample size is typically calculated by specifying the magnitude of the difference in the primary outcome between the intervention effects for the population of interest. This difference is called the 'target difference' and should be appropriate for the principal estimand of interest and determined by the primary aim of the study. The target difference between treatments should be considered realistic and/or important by one or more key stakeholder groups., Objective: The objective of the report is to provide practical help on the choice of target difference used in the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial for researchers and funder representatives., Methods: The Difference ELicitation in TriAls 2 (DELTA 2 ) recommendations and advice were developed through a five-stage process, which included two literature reviews of existing funder guidance and recent methodological literature; a Delphi process to engage with a wider group of stakeholders; a 2-day workshop; and finalising the core document., Results: Advice is provided for definitive trials (Phase III/IV studies). Methods for choosing the target difference are reviewed. To aid those new to the topic, and to encourage better practice, 10 recommendations are made regarding choosing the target difference and undertaking a sample size calculation. Recommended reporting items for trial proposal, protocols and results papers under the conventional approach are also provided. Case studies reflecting different trial designs and covering different conditions are provided. Alternative trial designs and methods for choosing the sample size are also briefly considered., Conclusions: Choosing an appropriate sample size is crucial if a study is to inform clinical practice. The number of patients recruited into the trial needs to be sufficient to answer the objectives; however, the number should not be higher than necessary to avoid unnecessary burden on patients and wasting precious resources. The choice of the target difference is a key part of this process under the conventional approach to sample size calculations. This document provides advice and recommendations to improve practice and reporting regarding this aspect of trial design. Future work could extend the work to address other less common approaches to the sample size calculations, particularly in terms of appropriate reporting items., Funding: Funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the MRC-National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research programme., Competing Interests: Lisa V Hampson is an employee of Novartis Pharma AG (Basel, Switzerland) and reports grants from the Medical Research Council (MRC). Catherine Hewitt is a member of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Commissioning Board since 2015. Jesse A Berlin is an employee of Johnson & Johnson (New Brunswick, NJ, USA) and holds shares in this company. Richard Emsley is a member of the NIHR HTA Clinical Trials Board since 2018. Deborah Ashby is a member of the HTA Commissioning Board, HTA Funding Boards Policy Group, HTA Mental Psychological and Occupational Health Methods Group, HTA Prioritisation Group and the HTA Remit and Competitiveness Group from January 2016 to December 2018. Stephen J Walters declares his department has contracts and/or research grants with the Department of Health and Social Care, NIHR, MRC and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. He also declares book royalties from John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (Hoboken, NJ, USA), as well as a grant from the MRC and personal fees for external examining. Louise Brown is a member of the NIHR Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Board since 2014. Craig R Ramsay is a member of the NIHR HTA General Board since 2017. Andrew Cook is a member of the NIHR HTA Interventional Procedures Methods Group, HTA Intellectual Property Panel, HTA Prioritisation Group, Public Health Research (PHR) Research Funding Board, Public Health Research Prioritisation Group and the PHR Programme Advisory Board.

Background: A key step in the design of a RCT is the estimation of the number of participants needed in the study. The most common approach is to specify a target difference between the treatments for the primary outcome and then calculate the required sample size. The sample size is chosen to ensure that the trial will have a high probability (adequate statistical power) of detecting a target difference between the treatments should one exist. The sample size has many implications for the conduct and interpretation of the study. Despite the critical role that the target difference has in the design of a RCT, the way in which it is determined has received little attention. In this article, we summarise the key considerations and messages from new guidance for researchers and funders on specifying the target difference, and undertaking and reporting a RCT sample size calculation. This article on choosing the target difference for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation has been dual published in the BMJ and BMC Trials journals METHODS: The DELTA 2 (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) project comprised five major components: systematic literature reviews of recent methodological developments (stage 1) and existing funder guidance (stage 2); a Delphi study (stage 3); a two-day consensus meeting bringing together researchers, funders and patient representatives (stage 4); and the preparation and dissemination of a guidance document (stage 5)., Results and Discussion: The key messages from the DELTA 2 guidance on determining the target difference and sample size calculation for a randomised caontrolled trial are presented. Recommendations for the subsequent reporting of the sample size calculation are also provided.

Background: A key step in the design of a randomised controlled trial is the estimation of the number of participants needed. The most common approach is to specify a target difference in the primary outcome between the randomised groups and then estimate the corresponding sample size. The sample size is chosen to provide reassurance that the trial will have high statistical power to detect the target difference at the planned statistical significance level. Alternative approaches are also available, though most still require specification of a target difference. The sample size has many implications for the conduct of the study, as well as incurring scientific and ethical aspects. Despite the critical role of the target difference for the primary outcome in the design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT), the manner in which it is determined has received little attention. This article reports the development of the DELTA 2 guidance on the specification and reporting of the target difference for the primary outcome in a sample size calculation for a RCT., Methods: The DELTA 2 (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) project has five components comprising systematic literature reviews of recent methodological developments (stage 1) and existing funder guidance (stage 2), a Delphi study (stage 3), a 2-day consensus meeting bringing together researchers, funders and patient representatives (stage 4), and the preparation and dissemination of a guidance document (stage 5)., Results: The project started in April 2016. The literature search identified 28 articles of methodological developments relevant to a method for specifying a target difference. A Delphi study involving 69 participants, along with a 2-day consensus meeting were conducted. In addition, further engagement sessions were held at two international conferences. The main guidance text was finalised on April 18, 2018, after revision informed by feedback gathered from stages 2 and 3 and from funder representatives., Discussion: The DELTA 2 Delphi study identified a number of areas (such as practical recommendations and examples, greater coverage of different trial designs and statistical approaches) of particular interest amongst stakeholders which new guidance was desired to meet. New relevant references were identified by the review. Such findings influenced the scope, drafting and revision of the guidance. While not all suggestions could be accommodated, it is hoped that the process has led to a more useful and practical document.

Background: A key step in the design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) is the estimation of the number of participants needed. By far the most common approach is to specify a target difference and then estimate the corresponding sample size; this sample size is chosen to provide reassurance that the trial will have high statistical power to detect such a difference between the randomised groups (at the planned statistical significance level). The sample size has many implications for the conduct of the study, as well as carrying scientific and ethical aspects to its choice. Despite the critical role of the target difference for the primary outcome in the design of an RCT, the manner in which it is determined has received little attention. This article reports the protocol of the Difference ELicitation in TriAls (DELTA 2 ) project, which will produce guidance on the specification and reporting of the target difference for the primary outcome in a sample size calculation for RCTs., Methods/design: The DELTA 2 project has five components: systematic literature reviews of recent methodological developments (stage 1) and existing funder guidance (stage 2); a Delphi study (stage 3); a 2-day consensus meeting bringing together researchers, funders and patient representatives, as well as one-off engagement sessions at relevant stakeholder meetings (stage 4); and the preparation and dissemination of a guidance document (stage 5)., Discussion: Specification of the target difference for the primary outcome is a key component of the design of an RCT. There is a need for better guidance for researchers and funders regarding specification and reporting of this aspect of trial design. The aim of this project is to produce consensus based guidance for researchers and funders.

Objective: To identify reproductive and socioeconomic factors that influence the preference for a method of childbirth., Method: Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with 233 women in postpartum care. Data were analyzed using association tests, namely the Chi-square test and multiple logistic regression., Results: The preference for vaginal childbirth was cited by 58% of women. The main reasons for this preference were quick postpartum recovery, a negative experience in Caesarean childbirth and fulfilment through motherhood. Analysis of the logistic models of preference for vaginal delivery according to the independent variables revealed a greater occurrence in women who had previous experience of this type of delivery (PR: 1.91; CI: 1.15-3.17) and had received prior guidance (PR: 1.76; CI: 1.06-2.90)., Conclusion: Findings highlight the need to transform the model of care provided during pregnancy and childbirth.

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

Background: Central to the design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) is a calculation of the number of participants needed. This is typically achieved by specifying a target difference, which enables the trial to identify a difference of a particular magnitude should one exist. Seven methods have been proposed for formally determining what the target difference should be. However, in practice, it may be driven by convenience or some other informal basis. It is unclear how aware the trialist community is of these formal methods or whether they are used., Purpose: To determine current practice regarding the specification of the target difference by surveying trialists., Methods: Two surveys were conducted: (1) Members of the Society for Clinical Trials (SCT): participants were invited to complete an online survey through the society's email distribution list. Respondents were asked about their awareness, use of, and willingness to recommend methods; (2) Leading UK- and Ireland-based trialists: the survey was sent to UK Clinical Research Collaboration registered Clinical Trials Units, Medical Research Council UK Hubs for Trial Methodology Research, and the Research Design Services of the National Institute for Health Research. This survey also included questions about the most recent trial developed by the respondent's group., Results: Survey 1: Of the 1182 members on the SCT membership email distribution list, 180 responses were received (15%). Awareness of methods ranged from 69 (38%) for health economic methods to 162 (90%) for pilot study. Willingness to recommend among those who had used a particular method ranged from 56% for the opinion-seeking method to 89% for the review of evidence-base method. Survey 2: Of the 61 surveys sent out, 34 (56%) responses were received. Awareness of methods ranged from 33 (97%) for the review of evidence-base and pilot methods to 14 (41%) for the distribution method. The highest level of willingness to recommend among users was for the anchor method (87%). Based upon the most recent trial, the target difference was usually one viewed as important by a stakeholder group, mostly also viewed as a realistic difference given the interventions under evaluation, and sometimes one that led to an achievable sample size., Limitations: The response rates achieved were relatively low despite the surveys being short, well presented, and having utilised reminders., Conclusion: Substantial variations in practice exist with awareness, use, and willingness to recommend methods varying substantially. The findings support the view that sample size calculation is a more complex process than would appear to be the case from trial reports and protocols. Guidance on approaches for sample size estimation may increase both awareness and use of appropriate formal methods., (© The Author(s), 2014.)

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are widely accepted as the preferred study design for evaluating healthcare interventions. When the sample size is determined, a (target) difference is typically specified that the RCT is designed to detect. This provides reassurance that the study will be informative, i.e., should such a difference exist, it is likely to be detected with the required statistical precision. The aim of this review was to identify potential methods for specifying the target difference in an RCT sample size calculation., Methods and Findings: A comprehensive systematic review of medical and non-medical literature was carried out for methods that could be used to specify the target difference for an RCT sample size calculation. The databases searched were MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Methodology Register, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index, EconLit, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and Scopus (for in-press publications); the search period was from 1966 or the earliest date covered, to between November 2010 and January 2011. Additionally, textbooks addressing the methodology of clinical trials and International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) tripartite guidelines for clinical trials were also consulted. A narrative synthesis of methods was produced. Studies that described a method that could be used for specifying an important and/or realistic difference were included. The search identified 11,485 potentially relevant articles from the databases searched. Of these, 1,434 were selected for full-text assessment, and a further nine were identified from other sources. Fifteen clinical trial textbooks and the ICH tripartite guidelines were also reviewed. In total, 777 studies were included, and within them, seven methods were identified-anchor, distribution, health economic, opinion-seeking, pilot study, review of the evidence base, and standardised effect size., Conclusions: A variety of methods are available that researchers can use for specifying the target difference in an RCT sample size calculation. Appropriate methods may vary depending on the aim (e.g., specifying an important difference versus a realistic difference), context (e.g., research question and availability of data), and underlying framework adopted (e.g., Bayesian versus conventional statistical approach). Guidance on the use of each method is given. No single method provides a perfect solution for all contexts.

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

Background: Glaucoma is a leading cause of avoidable blindness worldwide. Open angle glaucoma is the most common type of glaucoma. No randomised controlled trials have been conducted evaluating the effectiveness of glaucoma screening for reducing sight loss. It is unclear what the most appropriate intervention to be evaluated in any glaucoma screening trial would be. The purpose of this study was to develop the clinical components of an intervention for evaluation in a glaucoma (open angle) screening trial that would be feasible and acceptable in a UK eye-care service., Methods: A mixed-methods study, based on the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for complex interventions, integrating qualitative (semi-structured interviews with 46 UK eye-care providers, policy makers and health service commissioners), and quantitative (economic modelling) methods. Interview data were synthesised and used to revise the screening interventions compared within an existing economic model., Results: The qualitative data indicated broad based support for a glaucoma screening trial to take place in primary care, using ophthalmic trained technical assistants supported by optometry input. The precise location should be tailored to local circumstances. There was variability in opinion around the choice of screening test and target population. Integrating the interview findings with cost-effectiveness criteria reduced 189 potential components to a two test intervention including either optic nerve photography or screening mode perimetry (a measure of visual field sensitivity) with or without tonometry (a measure of intraocular pressure). It would be more cost-effective, and thus acceptable in a policy context, to target screening for open angle glaucoma to those at highest risk but for both practicality and equity arguments the optimal strategy was screening a general population cohort beginning at age forty., Conclusions: Interventions for screening for open angle glaucoma that would be feasible from a service delivery perspective were identified. Integration within an economic modelling framework explicitly highlighted the trade-off between cost-effectiveness, feasibility and equity. This study exemplifies the MRC recommendation to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods in developing complex interventions. The next step in the development pathway should encompass the views of service users.

Objective: To determine whether inclusion of glutamine, selenium, or both in a standard isonitrogenous, isocaloric preparation of parenteral nutrition influenced new infections and mortality among critically ill patients., Design: Randomised, double blinded, factorial, controlled trial., Setting: Level 2 and 3 (or combined) critical care units in Scotland. All 22 units were invited, and 10 participated., Participants: 502 adults in intensive care units and high dependency units for ≥ 48 hours, with gastrointestinal failure and requiring parenteral nutrition., Interventions: Parenteral glutamine (20.2 g/day) or selenium (500 μg/day), or both, for up to seven days., Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcomes were participants with new infections in the first 14 days and mortality. An intention to treat analysis and a prespecified analysis of patients who received ≥ 5 days of the trial intervention are presented. Secondary outcomes included critical care unit and acute hospital lengths of stay, days of antibiotic use, and modified SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score., Results: Selenium supplementation did not significantly affect patients developing a new infection (126/251 v 139/251, odds ratio 0.81 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.15)), except for those who had received ≥ 5 days of supplementation (odds ratio 0.53 (0.30 to 0.93)). There was no overall effect of glutamine on new infections (134/250 v 131/252, odds ratio 1.07 (0.75 to 1.53)), even if patients received ≥ 5 days of supplementation (odds ratio 0.99 (0.56 to 1.75)). Six month mortality was not significantly different for selenium (107/251 v 114/251, odds ratio 0.89 (0.62 to 1.29)) or glutamine (115/250 v 106/252, 1.18 (0.82 to 1.70)). Length of stay, days of antibiotic use, and modified SOFA score were not significantly affected by selenium or glutamine supplementation., Conclusions: The primary (intention to treat) analysis showed no effect on new infections or on mortality when parenteral nutrition was supplemented with glutamine or selenium. Patients who received parenteral nutrition supplemented with selenium for ≥ 5 days did show a reduction in new infections. This finding requires confirmation. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN87144826.

Objective: Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers and the standard surgical treatment for this cancer is open resection (OS), but laparoscopic surgery (LS) may be an alternative treatment. In 2000, a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) review found little evidence on costs and cost-effectiveness in comparing the two methods. The evidence base has since expanded and this study systematically reviews the economic evaluations on the subject published since 2000., Method: Systematic review of studies reporting costs and outcomes of LS vs OS for colorectal cancer. National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) methods for abstract writing were followed. Studies were summarized and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for common outcomes were calculated., Results: Five studies met the inclusion criteria. LS generally had higher healthcare costs. Most studies reported longer operational time and shorter length of stay and similar long-term outcomes with LS vs OS. Only one outcome, complications, was common across all studies but results lacked consistency (e.g. in two studies, OS was less costly but more effective; in another study, LS was less costly but more effective; and in the further two studies, LS could potentially be cost effective depending on the decision-makers' willingness to pay for the health gain)., Conclusion: The evidence on cost-effectiveness is not consistent. LS was generally more costly than OS. However, the effectiveness data used in individual economic evaluation were imprecise and unreliable when compared with data from systematic reviews of effectiveness. Nevertheless, short-term benefits of LS (e.g. shorter recovery) may make LS appear less costly when productivity gains are considered.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of screening for open-angle glaucoma (OAG) in the United Kingdom, given that OAG is an important cause of blindness worldwide., Methods: A Markov model was developed to estimate lifetime costs and benefits of a cohort of patients facing, alternatively, screening or current opportunistic case finding strategies. Strategies, varying in how screening would be organized (e.g., invitation for assessment by a glaucoma-trained optometrist [GO] or for simple test assessment by a technician) were developed, and allowed for the progression of OAG and treatment effects. Data inputs were obtained from systematic reviews. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed., Results: Screening was more likely to be cost-effective as prevalence increased, for 40 year olds compared with 60 or 75 year olds, when the re-screening interval was greater (10 years), and for the technician strategy compared with the GO strategy. For each age cohort and at prevalence levels of < or =1 percent, the likelihood that either screening strategy would be more cost-effective than current practice was small. For those 40 years of age, "technician screening" compared with current practice has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) that society might be willing to pay when prevalence is 6 percent to 10 percent and at over 10 percent for 60 year olds. In the United Kingdom, the age specific prevalence of OAG is much lower. Screening by GO, at any age or prevalence level, was not associated with an ICER < pound 30,000., Conclusions: Population screening for OAG is unlikely to be cost-effective but could be for specific subgroups at higher risk.

Background: Mortality rates in the Intensive Care Unit and subsequent hospital mortality rates in the UK remain high. Infections in Intensive Care are associated with a 2-3 times increased risk of death. It is thought that under conditions of severe metabolic stress glutamine becomes "conditionally essential". Selenium is an essential trace element that has antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Approximately 23% of patients in Intensive Care require parenteral nutrition and glutamine and selenium are either absent or present in low amounts. Both glutamine and selenium have the potential to influence the immune system through independent biochemical pathways. Systematic reviews suggest that supplementing parenteral nutrition in critical illness with glutamine or selenium may reduce infections and mortality. Pilot data has shown that more than 50% of participants developed infections, typically resistant organisms. We are powered to show definitively whether supplementation of PN with either glutamine or selenium is effective at reducing new infections in critically ill patients., Methods/design: 2 x 2 factorial, pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. The trial has an enrollment target of 500 patients. Inclusion criteria include: expected to be in critical care for at least 48 hours, aged 16 years or over, patients who require parenteral nutrition and are expected to have at least half their daily nutritional requirements given by that route. Allocation is to one of four iso-caloric, iso-nitrogenous groups: glutamine, selenium, both glutamine & selenium or no additional glutamine or selenium. Trial supplementation is given for up to seven days on the Intensive Care Unit and subsequent wards if practicable. The primary outcomes are episodes of infection in the 14 days after starting trial nutrition and mortality. Secondary outcomes include antibiotic usage, length of hospital stay, quality of life and cost-effectiveness., Discussion: To date more than 285 patients have been recruited to the trial from 10 sites in Scotland. Recruitment is due to finish in August 2008 with a further six months follow up. We expect to report the results of the trial in summer 2009., Trial Registration: This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number system. ISRCTN87144826.

Background & Aims: As people age there is a progressive dysregulation of the immune system that may lead to an increased risk of infections, which may precipitate hospital admission in people with chronic heart or respiratory diseases. Mineral and vitamin supplementation in older people could therefore influence infections in older people. However, the evidence from the available randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is mixed. The aim of the study was to assess the relative efficiency of multivitamin and multimineral supplementation compared with no supplementation., Methods: Cost-utility analysis alongside an RCT. Participants aged 65 years or over from six general practices in Grampian, Scotland, were studied. They were randomised to one tablet daily of either a multivitamin and multimineral supplement or matching placebo. Exclusion criteria were use of mineral, vitamin or fish oil supplements in the previous 3 months (1 month for water soluble vitamins), vitamin B12 injection in the last 3 months., Results: Nine hundred and ten participants were recruited (454 placebo and 456 supplementation). Use of health service resources and costs were similar between the two groups. The supplementation arm was more costly although this was not statistically significant ( pound15 per person, 95% CI-3.75 to 34.95). After adjusting for minimisation and baseline EQ-5D scores supplementation was associated with fewer QALYs per person (-0.018, 95% CI-0.04 to 0.002). It was highly unlikely that supplementation would be considered cost effective., Conclusions: The evidence from this study suggests that it is highly unlikely that supplementation could be considered cost effective.

Background: Observational studies have frequently reported an association between cognitive function and nutrition in later life but randomised trials of B vitamins and antioxidant supplements have mostly found no beneficial effect. We examined the effect of daily supplementation with 11 vitamins and 5 minerals on cognitive function in older adults to assess the possibility that this could help to prevent cognitive decline., Methods: The study was carried out as part of a randomised double blind placebo controlled trial of micronutrient supplementation based in six primary care health centres in North East Scotland. 910 men and women aged 65 years and over living in the community were recruited and randomised: 456 to active treatment and 454 to placebo. The active treatment consisted of a single tablet containing eleven vitamins and five minerals in amounts ranging from 50-210 % of the UK Reference Nutrient Intake or matching placebo tablet taken daily for 12 months. Digit span forward and verbal fluency tests, which assess immediate memory and executive functioning respectively, were conducted at the start and end of the intervention period. Risk of micronutrient deficiency at baseline was assessed by a simple risk questionnaire., Results: For digit span forward there was no evidence of an effect of supplements in all participants or in sub-groups defined by age or risk of deficiency. For verbal fluency there was no evidence of a beneficial effect in the whole study population but there was weak evidence for a beneficial effect of supplementation in the two pre-specified subgroups: in those aged 75 years and over (n 290; mean difference between supplemented and placebo groups 2.8 (95% CI -0.6, 6.2) units) and in those at increased risk of micronutrient deficiency assessed by the risk questionnaire (n 260; mean difference between supplemented and placebo groups 2.5 (95% CI -1.0, 6.1) units)., Conclusion: The results provide no evidence for a beneficial effect of daily multivitamin and multimineral supplements on these domains of cognitive function in community-living people over 65 years. However, the possibility of beneficial effects in older people and those at greater risk of nutritional deficiency deserves further attention.

Objective: To examine whether supplementation with multivitamins and multiminerals influences self reported days of infection, use of health services, and quality of life in people aged 65 or over., Design: Randomised, placebo controlled trial, with blinding of participants, outcome assessors, and investigators., Setting: Communities associated with six general practices in Grampian, Scotland., Participants: 910 men and women aged 65 or over who did not take vitamins or minerals., Interventions: Daily multivitamin and multimineral supplementation or placebo for one year., Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcomes were contacts with primary care for infections, self reported days of infection, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes included antibiotic prescriptions, hospital admissions, adverse events, and compliance., Results: Supplementation did not significantly affect contacts with primary care and days of infection per person (incidence rate ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.19 and 1.07, 0.90 to 1.27). Quality of life was not affected by supplementation. No statistically significant findings were found for secondary outcomes or subgroups., Conclusion: Routine multivitamin and multimineral supplementation of older people living at home does not affect self reported infection related morbidity., Trial Registration: ISRCTN: 66376460.

Purpose: To establish whether early use of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging or computed tomography (CT) influences treatment and outcome of patients with low back pain (LBP) and whether it is cost-effective., Materials and Methods: In a multicenter randomized study, two imaging policies for LBP were compared in 782 participants with symptomatic lumbar spine disorders who were referred to orthopedists or neurosurgeons. Participants were randomly allocated to early (393 participants; mean age, 43.9 years; range, 16-82 years) or delayed selective (389 participants; mean age, 42.8 years; range, 14-82 years) imaging groups. Delayed selective imaging referred to imaging restricted to patients in whom a clear clinical need subsequently developed. Main outcome measures were Aberdeen Low Back Pain (ALBP) score, Short Form 36 (SF-36) score (for multidimensional health status), EuroQol (EQ-5D) score (for quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] estimates), and healthcare resource use at 8 and 24 months after randomization. Data were evaluated with analysis of covariance, ordinal logistic regression analysis, and chi(2) and Mann-Whitney tests., Results: Both groups showed improvement in ALBP score, but this was greater in the early group (adjusted mean difference between groups, -3.05 points [95% CI: -5.16, -0.95; P =.005] and -3.62 points [95% CI: -5.92, -1.32; P =.002] at 8 and 24 months, respectively). Scores for SF-36 (bodily pain domain) and EQ-5D were also significantly better at 24 months. Clinical treatment was similar in both groups. Differences in total costs reflected cost of imaging. Imaging provided an adjusted mean additional QALY of 0.041 during 24 months at a mean incremental cost per QALY of $2,124., Conclusion: Early use of imaging does not appear to affect treatment overall. Decisions about the use of imaging depend on judgments concerning whether the small observed improvement in outcome justifies additional cost.

Background: Peritonitis is the most frequent serious complication of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD). It has a major influence on the number of patients switching from CAPD to haemodialysis and has probably restricted the wider acceptance and uptake of CAPD as an alternative mode of dialysis. This systematic review sought to determine if modifications of the transfer set (Y-set or double-bag systems) used in CAPD exchanges are associated with a reduction in peritonitis and an improvement in other relevant outcomes., Methods: Based on a comprehensive search strategy, we undertook a systematic review of randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing double-bag and/or Y-set CAPD exchange systems with standard systems, or comparing double-bag with Y-set systems, in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) treated with CAPD. Only published data were used. Data were abstracted by a single investigator onto a standard form and subsequently entered into Review Manager 4.0.4. Its statistical package, Metaview 3.1, calculated an odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous data and a (weighted) mean difference for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals., Results: Twelve eligible trials with a total of 991 randomized patients were identified. In trials comparing either the Y-set or double-bag systems with the standard systems, significantly fewer patients (133/363 vs 158/263; OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24-0.46) experienced peritonitis and the number of patient-months on CAPD per episode of peritonitis was consistently greater. When the double-bag systems were compared with the Y-set systems significantly fewer patients experienced peritonitis (44/154 vs 66/138; OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27-0.71) and the number of patient-months on CAPD per episode of peritonitis was also greater., Conclusions: Double-bag systems should be the preferred exchange systems in CAPD.