Search

Objective: To evaluate whether a subgroup of men can be identified that would benefit more from screening than others. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study was based on three European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) centres, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden. We identified 126 827 men aged 55–69 years in the study who were followed for maximum of 16 years after randomisation. The primary outcome was prostate cancer (PCa) mortality. We analysed three age groups 55–59, 60–64 and 65–69 years and PCa cases within four European Association of Urology (EAU) risk groups: low, intermediate, high risk, and advanced disease. Results: The hazard ratio (HR) for PCa mortality in the screening arm relative to the control arm for men aged 55–59 years was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75–1.24) in Finland, 0.70 (95% CI 0.44–1.12) in the Netherlands and 0.42 (95% CI 0.24–0.73) in Sweden. The HR for men aged 60–64 years was 1.03 (95% CI 0.77–1.37) in Finland, 0.76 (95% CI 0.50–1.16) in the Netherlands and 0.97 (95% CI 0.64–1.48) in Sweden. The HR for men aged 65–69 years was 0.80 (95% CI 0.62–1.03) in Finland and 0.57 (95% CI 0.38–0.83) in the Netherlands, and this age group was absent in Sweden. In the EAU risk group analysis, PCa mortality rates were materially lower for men with advanced disease at diagnosis in all three countries: 0.67 (95% CI 0.56–0.82) in Finland, 0.28 (95% CI 0.18–0.44) in the Netherlands, and 0.48 (95% CI 0.30–0.78) in Sweden. Conclusion: We were unable to unequivocally identify the optimal age group for screening, as mortality reduction differed among centres and age groups. Instead, the screening effect appears to depend on screening duration, and the number and frequency of screening rounds. PCa mortality reduction by screening is largely attributable to stage shift. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Induction of labour (IOL) is common practice and different methods carry different effectiveness and safety profiles. Objectives: To compare the effectiveness, and maternal and perinatal safety outcomes of IOL with vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone using individual participant data from randomised clinical trials. Search strategy: The following databases were searched from inception to March 2023: CINAHL Plus, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trial Register, Ovid Embase, Ovid Emcare, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with viable singleton gestation, no language restrictions, and all published and unpublished data. Data collection and analysis: An individual participant data meta‐analysis was carried out. Main results: Ten of 52 eligible trials provided individual participant data, of which two were excluded after checking data integrity. The remaining eight trials compared low‐dose vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone, including 4180 women undergoing IOL, which represents 32.8% of all participants in the published RCTs. Of these, 2077 were assigned to low‐dose vaginal misoprostol and 2103 were assigned to vaginal dinoprostone. Compared with vaginal dinoprostone, low‐dose vaginal misoprostol had a comparable rate of vaginal birth. Composite adverse perinatal outcomes did not differ between the groups. Compared with vaginal dinoprostone, composite adverse maternal outcomes were significantly lower with low‐dose vaginal misoprostol (aOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65–0.98, P = 0.03, I2 = 0%). Conclusions: Low‐dose vaginal misoprostol and vaginal dinoprostone for IOL are comparable in terms of effectiveness and perinatal safety. However, low‐dose vaginal misoprostol is likely to lead to a lower rate of composite adverse maternal outcomes than vaginal dinoprostone. This article includes Author Insights, a video abstract available at: https://vimeo.com/915799731. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To investigate relationships between serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL), ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 (sUCHL1), tau (sTau) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (sGFAP) levels and disease activity/disability in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), and the effects of inebilizumab on these biomarkers in N-MOmentum. METHODS: N-MOmentum randomised participants to receive inebilizumab or placebo with a randomised controlled period (RCP) of 28 weeks and an open-label follow-up period of ≥2 years. The sNfL, sUCHL1, sTau and sGFAP were measured using single-molecule arrays in 1260 scheduled and attack-related samples from N-MOmentum participants (immunoglobulin G (IgG) autoantibodies to aquaporin-4-positive, myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein-IgG-positive or double autoantibody-negative) and two control groups (healthy donors and patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis). RESULTS: The concentration of all four biomarkers increased during NMOSD attacks. At attack, sNfL had the strongest correlation with disability worsening during attacks (Spearman R2=0.40; p=0.01) and prediction of disability worsening after attacks (sNfL cut-off 32 pg/mL; area under the curve 0.71 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.89); p=0.02), but only sGFAP predicted upcoming attacks. At RCP end, fewer inebilizumab-treated than placebo-treated participants had sNfL>16 pg/mL (22% vs 45%; OR 0.36 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.76); p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with sGFAP, sTau and sUCHL1, sNfL at attack was the strongest predictor of disability worsening at attack and follow-up, suggesting a role for identifying participants with NMOSD at risk of limited post-relapse recovery. Treatment with inebilizumab was associated with lower levels of sGFAP and sNfL than placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02200770.

Abstract Background Randomised trials are essential to reliably assess medical interventions. Nevertheless, interpretation of such studies, particularly when considering absolute effects, is enhanced by understanding how the trial population may differ from the populations it aims to represent. Methods We compared baseline characteristics and mortality of RECOVERY participants recruited in England (n = 38,510) with a reference population hospitalised with COVID-19 in England (n = 346,271) from March 2020 to November 2021. We used linked hospitalisation and mortality data for both cohorts to extract demographics, comorbidity/frailty scores, and crude and age- and sex-adjusted 28-day all-cause mortality. Results Demographics of RECOVERY participants were broadly similar to the reference population, but RECOVERY participants were younger (mean age [standard deviation]: RECOVERY 62.6 [15.3] vs reference 65.7 [18.5] years) and less frequently female (37% vs 45%). Comorbidity and frailty scores were lower in RECOVERY, but differences were attenuated after age stratification. Age- and sex-adjusted 28-day mortality declined over time but was similar between cohorts across the study period (RECOVERY 23.7% [95% confidence interval: 23.3–24.1%]; vs reference 24.8% [24.6–25.0%]), except during the first pandemic wave in the UK (March–May 2020) when adjusted mortality was lower in RECOVERY. Conclusions Adjusted 28-day mortality in RECOVERY was similar to a nationwide reference population of patients admitted with COVID-19 in England during the same period but varied substantially over time in both cohorts. Therefore, the absolute effect estimates from RECOVERY were broadly applicable to the target population at the time but should be interpreted in the light of current mortality estimates. Trial registration ISRCTN50189673- Feb. 04, 2020, NCT04381936- May 11, 2020.

Background: Male factor infertility affect up to 50% of couples unable to conceive spontaneously. Several non-hormonal pharmacological treatments have been proposed to boost spermatogenesis and increase chances of conception in men with infertility. Still, no clear evidence exists on the most effective treatment strategy. Objective: We aimed to compare the effectiveness of non-hormonal pharmacological treatment options for men with infertility using a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL until October 2023 for randomised/quasi-randomised trials that evaluated any non-hormonal pharmacological treatment options for men with idiopathic semen abnormalities or those with hypogonadism. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses using a random effect model. We assessed risk of bias, heterogeneity, and network inconsistency. We calculated the mean rank and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for each intervention the maximum likelihood to achieve each of reported outcomes. We reported primarily on sperm concentration and other important semen and biochemical outcomes using standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence-intervals(CI). Results: We included 14 randomised trials evaluating four treatments (Clomiphene citrate, Tamoxifen, Aromatase inhibitors, anti-oxidants) and their combinations in 1342 men. The overall quality of included trials was low. Sperm concentration improved with clomiphene compared to anti-oxidants (SMD 2.15, 95%CI 0.78–3.52), aromatase inhibitor (SMD 2.93, 95%CI 1.23–4.62), tamoxifen (SMD − 1.96, 95%CI -3.57; -0.36) but not compared to placebo (SMD − 1.53, 95%CI -3.52- 0.47). Clomiphene had the highest likelihood to achieve the maximum change in sperm concentration (SUCRA 97.4). All treatments showed similar effect for sperm motility, semen volume, and normal sperm morphology. FSH levels showed significant improvement with clomiphene vs.anti-oxidant (SMD 1.48, 95%CI 0.44–2.51) but not compared to placebo. The evidence networks for LH and testosterone suffered from significant inconsistency (p = 0.01) with similar trend of improvement with clomiphene compared to other treatments but not compared to placebo. Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of Clomiphene, tamoxifen, and aromatase inhibitors to optimise semen parameters in men with infertility. Future randomised trials are needed to confirm the efficacy of clomiphene in improving fertility outcomes in men. PROSPERO: CRD42023430179. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Randomised trials are essential to reliably assess medical interventions. Nevertheless, interpretation of such studies, particularly when considering absolute effects, is enhanced by understanding how the trial population may differ from the populations it aims to represent. Methods: We compared baseline characteristics and mortality of RECOVERY participants recruited in England (n = 38,510) with a reference population hospitalised with COVID-19 in England (n = 346,271) from March 2020 to November 2021. We used linked hospitalisation and mortality data for both cohorts to extract demographics, comorbidity/frailty scores, and crude and age- and sex-adjusted 28-day all-cause mortality. Results: Demographics of RECOVERY participants were broadly similar to the reference population, but RECOVERY participants were younger (mean age [standard deviation]: RECOVERY 62.6 [15.3] vs reference 65.7 [18.5] years) and less frequently female (37% vs 45%). Comorbidity and frailty scores were lower in RECOVERY, but differences were attenuated after age stratification. Age- and sex-adjusted 28-day mortality declined over time but was similar between cohorts across the study period (RECOVERY 23.7% [95% confidence interval: 23.3–24.1%]; vs reference 24.8% [24.6–25.0%]), except during the first pandemic wave in the UK (March–May 2020) when adjusted mortality was lower in RECOVERY. Conclusions: Adjusted 28-day mortality in RECOVERY was similar to a nationwide reference population of patients admitted with COVID-19 in England during the same period but varied substantially over time in both cohorts. Therefore, the absolute effect estimates from RECOVERY were broadly applicable to the target population at the time but should be interpreted in the light of current mortality estimates. Trial registration: ISRCTN50189673- Feb. 04, 2020, NCT04381936- May 11, 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Better data are fundamental to improving the effectiveness of policies. Drawing on examples from nutrition, education, criminal justice and income support, I discuss how data access has contributed to policy improvements. Data linkage across departments can also help ensure that policymakers are focussed on the right policy goals, rather than merely those that are easiest to measure. As governments increase the rigour of evaluation, quality data will be crucial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent phase 3 randomised controlled trials of amyloid-targeting monoclonal antibodies in people with pre-clinical or early Alzheimer disease have reported positive results, raising hope of finally having disease-modifying drugs. Given their far-reaching implications for clinical practice, the methods and findings of these trials, and the disease causation theory underpinning the mechanism of drug action, need to be critically appraised. Key considerations are the representativeness of trial populations; balance of prognostic factors at baseline; psychometric properties and minimal clinically important differences of the primary efficacy outcome measures; level of study fidelity; consistency of subgroup analyses; replication of findings in similar trials; sponsor role and potential conflicts of interest; consistency of results with disease causation theory; cost and resource estimates; and alternative prevention and treatment strategies. In this commentary, we show shortcomings in each of these areas and conclude that monoclonal antibody treatment for early Alzheimer disease is lacking high-quality evidence of clinically meaningful impacts at an affordable cost. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundCoformulated sodium phenylbutyrate/taurursodiol (PB/TURSO) was shown to prolong survival and slow functional decline in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).ObjectiveDetermine whether PB/TURSO prolonged tracheostomy/ventilation-free survival and/or reduced first hospitalisation in participants with ALS in the CENTAUR trial.MethodsAdults with El Escorial Definite ALS ≤18 months from symptom onset were randomised to PB/ TURSO or placebo for 6 months. Those completing randomised treatment could enrol in an open-label extension (OLE) phase and receive PB/TURSO for ≤30 months. Times to the following individual or combined key events were compared in the originally randomised treatment groups over a period spanning trial start through July 2020 (longest postrandomisation follow-up, 35 months): death, tracheostomy, permanent assisted ventilation (PAV) and first hospitalisation.ResultsRisk of any key event was 47% lower in those originally randomised to PB/TURSO (n=87) versus placebo (n=48, 71% of whom received delayed-start PB/TURSO in the OLE phase) (HR=0.53; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.81; p=0.003). Risks of death or tracheostomy/PAV (HR=0.51; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.84; p=0.007) and first hospitalisation (HR=0.56; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.95; p=0.03) were also decreased in those originally randomised to PB/TURSO.ConclusionsEarly PB/TURSO prolonged tracheostomy/PAV-free survival and delayed first hospitalisation in ALS.Trial registration numberNCT03127514; NCT03488524.

Propose: The purpose of this study was to assess whether the implementation of a "dual trigger" approach, utilizing gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) in the GnRH antagonist protocol for in vitro fertilization (IVF), leads to improved pregnancy outcomes compared to the conventional hCG trigger alone. Previous meta-analyses have not provided sufficient evidence to support the superiority of the dual trigger over the hCG trigger in fresh or frozen embryo transfer cycles. Thus, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials were conducted to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of the dual trigger on pregnancy outcomes in fresh or frozen embryo transfer cycles. Method: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted. We searched the Medline and Embase databases for articles up to 2023 by using search terms: "dual trigger," "GnRHa," "hCG," "IVF." Eligible RCTs comparing the dual trigger with the hCG trigger were included. The primary outcome was the live birth rate (LBR) per cycle. The secondary outcomes were the number of oocytes retrieved, number of mature oocytes retrieved, implantation rate, biochemical pregnancy rate, CPR, miscarriage rate and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate per started cycle We compared the oocyte maturation and pregnancy outcomes in the dual trigger and hCG trigger groups. In patients undergoing fresh embryo transfer (ET) and frozen–thawed ET, we also conducted a subgroup analysis to evaluate whether dual trigger improves the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR). Results: We included 10 randomised studies, with 825 participants in the dual trigger group and 813 in the hCG trigger group. Compared with the hCG trigger, dual trigger was associated with a significant increase in the LBR per cycle (odds ratio (OR) = 1.61[1.16, 2.25]), number of oocytes retrieved (mean difference [MD] = 1.05 [0.43, 1.68]), number of mature oocytes retrieved (MD = 0.82 [0. 84, 1.16]), and CPR (OR = 1.48 [1.08, 2.01]). Subgroup analyses revealed that dual trigger was associated with a significantly increased CPR in patients who received fresh ET (OR = 1.68 [1.14, 2.48]). By contrast, the dual trigger was not associated with an increased CPR in the patient group with frozen–thawed ET (OR = 1.15 [0.64, 2.08]). Conclusion: The dual trigger was associated with a significantly higher number of retrieved oocytes, number of mature oocytes, CPR, and LBR in IVF than the hCG trigger. The beneficial effect for fresh ET cycles compared with frozen–thawed ET might be associated with increased endometrial receptivity. Relevance: After dual trigger, delaying ET due to the concern of endometrial receptivity might not be needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Whether economics warrants public trust depends on the extent to which assertions by economists can be deemed credible. Three examples from microeconomics are examined to assess how the discipline performs in this regard. First, a purely theoretical argument with broad conceptual implications: a quasi-evolutionary argument for rational choice based on the notion of money pumps. Second, a modelling-related claim with significant social implications: economists' objection to minimum wages based on a simple supply-demand model. Third, methodological choices with implications for all empirical work in microeconomics: the recent proclamation of a 'credibility revolution' in applied microeconomics through the use of experimental and quasi-experimental methods. These are assessed against proposed criteria for credibility: epistemic validity, epistemic reliability, and epistemic reflexivity. On the basis of the performance of the discipline against these criteria on the examples considered, I conclude that public distrust of economics and economists can be well-founded. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Data collection is a substantial part of trial workload for participants and staff alike. How these hours of work are spent is important because stakeholders are more interested in some outcomes than others. The ORINOCO study compared the time spent collecting primary outcome data to the time spent collecting secondary outcome data in a cohort of trials. Methods We searched PubMed for phase III trials indexed between 2015 and 2019. From these, we randomly selected 120 trials evaluating a therapeutic intervention plus an additional random selection of 20 trials evaluating a public health intervention. We also added eligible trials from a cohort of 189 trials in rheumatology that had used the same core outcome set. We then obtained the time taken to collect primary and secondary outcomes in each trial. We used a hierarchy of methods that included data in trial reports, contacting the trial team and approaching individuals with experience of using the identified outcome measures. We calculated the primary to secondary data collection time ratio and notional data collection cost for each included trial. Results We included 161 trials (120 phase III; 21 core outcome set; 20 public health), which together collected 230 primary and 688 secondary outcomes. Full primary and secondary timing data were obtained for 134 trials (100 phase III; 17 core outcome set; 17 public health). The median time spent on primaries was 56.1 h (range: 0.0–10,746.7, IQR: 226.89) and the median time spent on secondaries was 190.7 hours (range: 0.0–1,356,832.9, IQR: 617.6). The median primary to secondary data collection time ratio was 1.0:3.0 (i.e. for every minute spent on primary outcomes, 3.0 were spent on secondaries). The ratio varied by trial type: phase III trials were 1.0:3.1, core outcome set 1.0:3.4 and public health trials 1.0:2.2. The median notional overall data collection cost was £8015.73 (range: £52.90–£31,899,140.70, IQR: £20,096.64). Conclusions Depending on trial type, between two and three times as much time is spent collecting secondary outcome data than collecting primary outcome data. Trial teams should explicitly consider how long it will take to collect the data for an outcome and decide whether that time is worth it given importance of the outcome to the trial.

Abstract Using a surrogate endpoint as a substitute for a patient-relevant final outcome enables randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to be conducted more efficiently. However, the use of surrogates remains controversial and there is currently no guideline for the reporting of RCTs using surrogate endpoints; therefore, we seek to develop SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extensions to improve the reporting of these trials. We would like to invite interested individuals (trial methodologists, journal editors, healthcare industry, regulators and payers, and patient/public representative groups), particularly those with experience in the use of surrogate endpoints in trials.

Abstract Randomised trials, especially those intended to directly inform clinical practice and policy, should be designed to reflect all those who could benefit from the intervention under test should it prove effective. This does not always happen. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) INCLUDE project identified many groups in the UK that are under-served by trials, including ethnic minorities. This guidance document presents four key recommendations for designing and running trials that include the ethnic groups needed by the trial. These are (1) ensure eligibility criteria and recruitment pathway do not limit participation in ways you do not intend, (2) ensure your trial materials are developed with inclusion in mind, (3) ensure staff are culturally competent and (4) build trusting partnerships with community organisations that work with ethnic minority groups. Each recommendation comes with best practice advice, public contributor testimonials, examples of the inclusion problem tackled by the recommendation, or strategies to mitigate the problem, as well as a collection of resources to support implementation of the recommendations. We encourage trial teams to follow the recommendations and, where possible, evaluate the strategies they use to implement them. Finally, while our primary audience is those designing, running and reporting trials, we hope funders, grant reviewers and approvals agencies may also find our guidance useful.

Abstract Background Access to protocols and statistical analysis plans (SAPs) increases the transparency of randomised trial by allowing readers to identify and interpret unplanned changes to study methods, however they are often not made publicly available. We sought to determine how often study investigators would share unavailable documents upon request. Methods We used trials from two previously identified cohorts (cohort 1: 101 trials published in high impact factor journals between January and April of 2018; cohort 2: 100 trials published in June 2018 in journals indexed in PubMed) to determine whether study investigators would share unavailable protocols/SAPs upon request. We emailed corresponding authors of trials with no publicly available protocol or SAP up to four times. Results Overall, 96 of 201 trials (48%) across the two cohorts had no publicly available protocol or SAP (11/101 high-impact cohort, 85/100 PubMed cohort). In total, 8/96 authors (8%) shared some trial documentation (protocol only [n = 5]; protocol and SAP [n = 1]; excerpt from protocol [n = 1]; research ethics application form [n = 1]). We received protocols for 6/96 trials (6%), and a SAP for 1/96 trial (1%). Seventy-three authors (76%) did not respond, 7 authors responded (7%) but declined to share a protocol or SAP, and eight email addresses were invalid (8%). A total of 329 emails were sent (an average of 41 emails for every trial which sent documentation). After emailing authors, the total number of trials with an available protocol increased by only 3%, from 52% in to 55%. Conclusions Most study investigators did not share their unpublished protocols or SAPs upon direct request. Alternative strategies are needed to increase transparency of randomised trials and ensure access to protocols and SAPs.

The frontotemporal dementia (FTD) spectrum is a heterogeneous group of neurodegenerative syndromes with overlapping clinical, molecular and pathological features, all of which challenge the design of clinical trials in these conditions. To date, no pharmacological interventions have been proven effective in significantly modifying the course of these disorders. This study critically reviews the construct and methodology of previously published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in FTD spectrum disorders in order to identify limitations and potential reasons for negative results. Moreover, recommendations based on the identified gaps are elaborated in order to guide future clinical trial design. A systematic literature review was carried out and presented in conformity with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria. A total of 23 RCTs in cohorts with diagnoses of behavioural and language variants of FTD, corticobasal syndrome and progressive supranuclear palsy syndrome were identified out of the 943 citations retrieved and were included in the qualitative review. Most studies identified were early-phase clinical trials that were small in size, short in duration and frequently underpowered. Diagnoses of populations enrolled in clinical trials were based on clinical presentation and rarely included precision-medicine tools, such as genetic and molecular testing. Uniformity and standardisation of research outcomes in the FTD spectrum are essential. Several elements should be carefully considered and planned in future clinical trials. We anticipate that precision-medicine approaches will be crucial to adequately address heterogeneity in the FTD spectrum research.

Abstract Background The last 20 years have seen a marked increase in the use of cluster randomised trials (CRTs) in schools to evaluate interventions for improving pupil health outcomes. Schools have limited resources and participating in full-scale trials can be challenging and costly, given their main purpose is education. Feasibility studies can be used to identify challenges with implementing interventions and delivering trials. This systematic review summarises methodological characteristics and objectives of school-based cluster randomised feasibility studies in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE from inception to 31 December 2020. Eligible papers were school-based feasibility CRTs that included health outcomes measured on pupils. Results Of 3285 articles identified, 24 were included. School-based feasibility CRTs have been increasingly used in the UK since the first publication in 2008. Five (21%) studies provided justification for the use of the CRT design. Three (13%) studies provided details of a formal sample size calculation, with only one of these allowing for clustering. The median (IQR; range) recruited sample size was 7.5 (4.5 to 9; 2 to 37) schools and 274 (179 to 557; 29 to 1567) pupils. The most common feasibility objectives were to estimate the potential effectiveness of the intervention (n = 17; 71%), assess acceptability of the intervention (n = 16; 67%), and estimate the recruitment/retention rates (n = 15; 63%). Only one study was used to assess whether cluster randomisation was appropriate, and none of the studies that randomised clusters before recruiting pupils assessed the possibility of recruitment bias. Besides potential effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and the intra-cluster correlation coefficient, no studies quantified the precision of the feasibility parameter estimates. Conclusions Feasibility CRTs are increasingly used in schools prior to definitive trials of interventions for improving health in pupils. The average sample size of studies included in this review would be large enough to estimate pupil-level feasibility parameters (e.g., percentage followed up) with reasonable precision. The review highlights the need for clearer sample size justification and better reporting of the precision with which feasibility parameters are estimated. Better use could be made of feasibility CRTs to assess challenges that are specific to the cluster design. Trial registration PROSPERO: CRD42020218993.

Abstract Background At the 2015 REWARD/EQUATOR conference on research waste, the late Doug Altman revealed that his only regret about his 1994 BMJ paper ‘The scandal of poor medical research’ was that he used the word ‘poor’ rather than ‘bad’. But how much research is bad? And what would improve things? Main text We focus on randomised trials and look at scale, participants and cost. We randomly selected up to two quantitative intervention reviews published by all clinical Cochrane Review Groups between May 2020 and April 2021. Data including the risk of bias, number of participants, intervention type and country were extracted for all trials included in selected reviews. High risk of bias trials was classed as bad. The cost of high risk of bias trials was estimated using published estimates of trial cost per participant. We identified 96 reviews authored by 546 reviewers from 49 clinical Cochrane Review Groups that included 1659 trials done in 84 countries. Of the 1640 trials providing risk of bias information, 1013 (62%) were high risk of bias (bad), 494 (30%) unclear and 133 (8%) low risk of bias. Bad trials were spread across all clinical areas and all countries. Well over 220,000 participants (or 56% of all participants) were in bad trials. The low estimate of the cost of bad trials was £726 million; our high estimate was over £8 billion. We have five recommendations: trials should be neither funded (1) nor given ethical approval (2) unless they have a statistician and methodologist; trialists should use a risk of bias tool at design (3); more statisticians and methodologists should be trained and supported (4); there should be more funding into applied methodology research and infrastructure (5). Conclusions Most randomised trials are bad and most trial participants will be in one. The research community has tolerated this for decades. This has to stop: we need to put rigour and methodology where it belongs — at the centre of our science.

Abstract Marketing is a core business function in commercial companies but is also frequently used by not-for-profit organisations. Marketing focuses on understanding what people value to make choices about engaging with a product or service: a concept also key to understanding why people may choose to engage with a clinical trial. Understanding the needs and values of stakeholders, whether they are participants, staff at recruiting sites or policy-makers, is critical for a clinical trial to be a success. As many trials fail to recruit and retain participants, perhaps it is time for us to consider approaches from other disciplines. Though clinical trial teams may consider evidence- and non-evidence-based recruitment and retention strategies, this is rarely done in a systematic, streamlined way and is often in response to challenges once the trial has started. In this short commentary, we argue the need for a formal marketing approach to be applied to clinical trials, from the outset, as a potential prevention to recruitment and retention problems.

Abstract Background Evidence to support the use of many retention strategies in clinical trials is lacking. Despite this, trial teams still need to have some form of retention strategy in their trials to try and avoid high attrition rates. This study aimed to estimate how much this lack of retention evidence might be costing trials in Ireland and the UK. Methods We selected the top ten most routinely used retention strategies by Clinical Trial Units in the UK and made assumptions as to how each of these strategies was most likely to be implemented and the costs involved in doing this. We applied our costing model to a hypothetical trial scenario in both Ireland and the UK as well as to three published trial protocols. We developed the costing model and calculated the costs in Microsoft Excel. Results Retention strategies were often poorly specified, meaning we had to make assumptions about implementation and in some cases about the strategy itself. Based on our assumptions, some retention strategies can be extremely expensive; some of the costliest strategies included “data collection scheduled with routine care” (€900–€32,503.25), “a timeline of participant visits for sites”—with integrated participant reminder (€304.74–€14,803.70), and “routine site visits by CTU staff” and “investigator meetings face to face”, both costing (€777.67–€14,753.48). Others such as “telephone reminders for questionnaire response” (€34.58–€568.62), “a timeline of participant visits for sites”—site reminder alone (€79.18–€112.23), and “targeted recruitment of sites/GPs” (€30–€1620) were less costly compared to the other strategies. Discussion The resources invested in the use of some retention strategies may outweigh known or imagined benefits on retention. Where benefits are currently unknown, evaluation should be a priority. Conclusion More evaluation of the effectiveness and cost of trial retention strategies is needed to avoid widespread use of strategies that are both expensive and ineffective.

Background: Data collection is a substantial part of trial workload for participants and staff alike. How these hours of work are spent is important because stakeholders are more interested in some outcomes than others. The ORINOCO study compared the time spent collecting primary outcome data to the time spent collecting secondary outcome data in a cohort of trials. Methods: We searched PubMed for phase III trials indexed between 2015 and 2019. From these, we randomly selected 120 trials evaluating a therapeutic intervention plus an additional random selection of 20 trials evaluating a public health intervention. We also added eligible trials from a cohort of 189 trials in rheumatology that had used the same core outcome set. We then obtained the time taken to collect primary and secondary outcomes in each trial. We used a hierarchy of methods that included data in trial reports, contacting the trial team and approaching individuals with experience of using the identified outcome measures. We calculated the primary to secondary data collection time ratio and notional data collection cost for each included trial. Results: We included 161 trials (120 phase III; 21 core outcome set; 20 public health), which together collected 230 primary and 688 secondary outcomes. Full primary and secondary timing data were obtained for 134 trials (100 phase III; 17 core outcome set; 17 public health). The median time spent on primaries was 56.1 h (range: 0.0–10,746.7, IQR: 226.89) and the median time spent on secondaries was 190.7 hours (range: 0.0–1,356,832.9, IQR: 617.6). The median primary to secondary data collection time ratio was 1.0:3.0 (i.e. for every minute spent on primary outcomes, 3.0 were spent on secondaries). The ratio varied by trial type: phase III trials were 1.0:3.1, core outcome set 1.0:3.4 and public health trials 1.0:2.2. The median notional overall data collection cost was £8015.73 (range: £52.90–£31,899,140.70, IQR: £20,096.64). Conclusions: Depending on trial type, between two and three times as much time is spent collecting secondary outcome data than collecting primary outcome data. Trial teams should explicitly consider how long it will take to collect the data for an outcome and decide whether that time is worth it given importance of the outcome to the trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using a surrogate endpoint as a substitute for a patient-relevant final outcome enables randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to be conducted more efficiently. However, the use of surrogates remains controversial and there is currently no guideline for the reporting of RCTs using surrogate endpoints; therefore, we seek to develop SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extensions to improve the reporting of these trials. We would like to invite interested individuals (trial methodologists, journal editors, healthcare industry, regulators and payers, and patient/public representative groups), particularly those with experience in the use of surrogate endpoints in trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: High-level evidence for using steroids in epileptic encephalopathy (EE), other than West syndrome (WS), is lacking. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of pulse intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) in EE other than WS.Methods: This is an open-label evaluator-blinded randomised controlled study. Children aged 6 months or more with EE other than WS were included. Eighty children were randomised into intervention and non-intervention groups with 40 in each group. At the first visit (T1) seizure frequency, electroencephalographic (EEG) and Vineland Social Maturity Scale (VSMS) were obtained, and antiseizure medication (ASM) were optimised. After 1 month (T2), subjects were randomised to intervention (ASM+3 months IVMP pulse) or non-intervention group (only ASM) with 40 subjects in each group. They were followed up for 4 months (T3) and assessed.Results: After 4 months of follow-up, 75% of patients receiving IVMP had >50% seizure reduction versus 15.4% in control group (χ2=28.29, p<0.001) (RR 4.88, 95% CI 2.29 to 10.40), median percentage change in seizure frequency (91.41% vs 10%, p<0.001), improvement in EEG (45.5% vs 9.4%, χ2=10.866, p=0.001) and social age domain of VSMS scores (Z=-3.62, p<0.001) compared with baseline. None of the patients in the intervention group had any serious side-effects.Discussion: Three-month pulse IVMP therapy showed significant improvement in seizure frequency, EEG parameters and VSMS scores, with no steroid-related serious adverse effects. It can be considered as a safe and effective add on treatment in children with EE other than WS.Trial Registration Number: CTRI/2019/02/017807. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims: To summarise the temporal trends of recruitment and methodological characteristics of critical care randomised controlled trials with the primary outcome of mortality. Methods: PubMed was searched for articles meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria. Randomised controlled trials, with primary outcome of mortality, of adult and paediatric critical care patients treated in an intensive care unit, were included. Neonatal intensive care unit trials, non-English publications and conference proceedings or abstracts without full-length publications were excluded. Duplicate literature search, article selection and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers with disputes resolved through discussion. Data were extracted into a custom-designed Research Electronic Data Capture database. Results: The search identified 67,199 records of which 230 were included. The annual number of critical care randomised controlled trials published increased gradually over a 30-year period from 0 in 1990 to 19 in 2014 with stabilisation at 8–11 between 2015 and 2020. Twenty-seven percent of randomised controlled trials were low risk in all categories using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Methodological characteristics such as registration on clinical trials registries and data safety monitoring committee presence significantly (p < 0.001) increased over time. The median recruitment was 376 patients (interquartile range 125–895) with significant increase (p = 0.002) from 62 (interquartile range: 33–486) in 1991 to 725 (interquartile range: 537–2600) in 2020. This was accompanied by an increase in recruitment times. Thus overall, recruitment rates did not increase. Early cessation occurred in 23% (54/230) of randomised controlled trials with no temporal trend. Conclusion: The number, size and some methodological qualities of critical randomised controlled trials with primary outcome of mortality have increased over time, but rates of recruitment and early cessation have been unchanged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Meta-analyses of individual-level data from randomised trials are often required to detect clinically worthwhile effects. The Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration, which includes data from numerous large long-term statin trials, is conducting a review of the effects of statin therapy on all adverse events collected in those trials. This article describes the approaches used and challenges faced to systematically capture and categorise the data. Methods: Protocols, statistical analysis plans, case report forms, clinical study reports and datasets were obtained, reviewed and checked. Relevant baseline and follow-up data from each trial was then reorganised into standardised formats based upon the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium Study Data Tabulation Model. Adverse event data were organised and coded (automatically or, where necessary, manually) according to a common medical dictionary based upon the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities. Results: Data from 23 double-blind statin trials and 5 open-label statin trials were provided, either through direct data transfer or through online access platforms. Together, these trials provided 845 datasets containing over 38 million records relating to 30,495 study variables and 181,973 randomised participants. Of the 46 Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium Study Data Tabulation Model domains that could potentially have been used to organise the data, the 13 most relevant to the project were identified and utilised, including 6 domains related to post-randomisation adverse events. Nearly 1.2 million adverse events were extracted and mapped to over 45,000 unique adverse event terms. Of these adverse events, 99% were coded to a Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities 'lower level term', with the remainder coded to a 'higher level term' or, very rarely, only a 'higher level group term'. Conclusion: In this meta-analysis of adverse event data from the large randomised trials of statins, approaches based on common standards for data organisation and classification have provided a resource capable of allowing reliable and rapid evaluation of any previously unknown benefits or hazards of statin therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) struggle to recruit, despite valiant efforts. The QRI (QuinteT Recruitment Intervention) uses innovative research methods to optimise recruitment by revealing previously hidden barriers related to the perceptions and experiences of recruiters and patients, and targeting remedial actions. It was designed to be integrated with RCTs anticipating difficulties at the outset. A new version of the intervention (QRI-Two) was developed for RCTs already underway with enrolment shortfalls. Methods QRIs in 12 RCTs with enrolment shortfalls during 2007–2017 were reviewed to document which of the research methods used could be rapidly applied to successfully identify recruitment barriers. These methods were then included in the new streamlined QRI-Two intervention which was applied in 20 RCTs in the USA and Europe during 2018–2019. The feasibility of the QRI-Two was investigated, recruitment barriers and proposed remedial actions were documented, and the QRI-Two protocol was finalised. Results The review of QRIs from 2007 to 2017 showed that previously unrecognised recruitment barriers could be identified but data collection for the full QRI required time and resources usually unavailable to ongoing RCTs. The streamlined QRI-Two focussed on analysis of screening/accrual data and RCT documents (protocol, patient-information), with discussion of newly diagnosed barriers and potential remedial actions in a workshop with the RCT team. Four RCTs confirmed the feasibility of the rapid application of the QRI-Two. When the QRI-Two was applied to 14 RCTs underway with enrolment shortfalls, an array of previously unknown/underestimated recruitment barriers related to issues such as equipoise, intervention preferences, or study presentation was identified, with new insights into losses of eligible patients along the recruitment pathway. The QRI-Two workshop enabled discussion of the newly diagnosed barriers and potential remedial actions to improve recruitment in collaboration with the RCT team. As expected, the QRI-Two performed less well in six RCTs at the start-up stage before commencing enrolment. Conclusions The QRI-Two can be applied rapidly, diagnose previously unrecognised recruitment barriers, and suggest remedial actions in RCTs underway with enrolment shortfalls, providing opportunities for RCT teams to develop targeted actions to improve recruitment. The effectiveness of the QRI-Two in improving recruitment requires further evaluation.

Debates persist regarding the optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in coronary artery disease (CAD). Recent trials have introduced a novel approach involving P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with ticagrelor or clopidogrel, after a short DAPT. However, the effectiveness and safety of this strategy remains to be established. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis comparing monotherapy with P2Y12 inhibitors versus standard DAPT in patients undergoing PCI at 12 months. Multiple databases were searched. Six RCTs with a total of 24877 patients were included. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 12 months of follow-up. The secondary endpoints were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, probable or definite stent thrombosis, stroke events, and major bleeding. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024499529). Monotherapy with P2Y12 inhibitor ticagrelor significantly reduced both allcause mortality (HR 0.71, 95 CI [0.55-0.91], P = 0.007) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.66, 95% CI [0.49-0.89], P = 0.006) compared to standard DAPT. In contrast, clopidogrel monotherapy did not demonstrate a similar reduction. The decrease in mortality associated with ticagrelor was primarily due to a lower risk of major bleeding (HR 0.56, 95% CI [0.43-0.72], P < 0.001), while the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) remained unchanged (HR 0.90, 95% CI [0.73-1.11], P = 0.32). The risk of stroke was found to be similar across treatments. In comparison to standard DAPT, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with ticagrelor may lead to a reduced mortality. The clinical benefits are driven by a reduction of bleeding risk without ischemic risk trade-off. What Is New? • The current meta-analysis showed that mortality is lower in patients treated with P2Y 12 monotherapy compared to standard dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), primarily driven by reduced bleeding risks. • Among different P2Y 12 inhibitors, ticagrelor shows greater effectiveness in reducing mortality compared to clopidogrel when used as monotherapy following a short course of DAPT. • The study demonstrates consistency in the effectiveness of P2Y 12 inhibitor monotherapy, indicated by a 0 % I2 value for mortality differences when comparing ticagrelor and clopidogrel monotherapy to standard DAPT, suggesting no observed heterogeneity across the included trials. Bayesian meta-analysis confirmed the findings for mortality from the frequentist meta-analysis. What Are the Clinical Implications? • This meta-analysis supports a paradigm shift in antithrombotic therapy, emphasizing a balance between ischemic prevention and bleeding risk. P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, especially with ticagrelor, appears to optimize this balance. • The findings suggest that a shorter duration of DAPT (up to 3 months), followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with ticagrelor, may significantly reduce mortality, offering a safer and effective alternative to prolonged standard DAPT. • The reduced mortality associated with P2Y12 monotherapy, especially due to the lower risk of bleeding, highlights the need for personalized antithrombotic strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction The Safer Prescribing and Care for the Elderly (SPACE) cluster randomised controlled trial in 39 general practices found that a search of the practice database to identify and generate for each general practitioner (GP) a list of patients with high-risk prescribing, pharmacist-delivered one-on-one feedback to GPs, and electronic tick-box for GPs to select action for each patient (Patient letter; No letter but possible medication review when patient next in; No action), prompted safer prescribing at 6 months but not at 1 year. Aim This process evaluation explores research participation, intervention uptake and effect on GPs. Methods Mixed methods were used including quantitative data (log of practice recruitment, demographic data, intervention delivery and GP responses including tick-box selections) and qualitative data (trial pharmacist reflective journal). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and general inductive analysis, respectively. Results Recruitment of general practices was challenging, with only 39% of eligible practices agreeing to participate. Those who declined were often ‘too busy’. Engagement was also challenging, especially in larger practices, with the trial pharmacist managing to meet with only 64% of GPs in the intervention group. The GPs who did engage were positive about the intervention, but elected to send letters to only 23% of patients with high-risk prescribing, either because the high-risk prescribing had already stopped, the GP did not agree the prescribing was ‘high-risk’ or the GP was concerned a letter would upset the patient. Conclusions Effectiveness of the SPACE cluster randomised controlled trial could be improved by changes including ensuring searches are current and relevant, repeating cycles of search and feedback, and integrating pharmacists into general practices.

Abstract We previously proposed that realist randomised controlled trials could be used to evaluate how, for whom and under what conditions complex interventions can be used to activate mechanisms to improve health. While this idea was accepted by some, it was also met with resistance, particularly from some realist evaluators who believe that trials are inextricably positivist and dependent on constant conjunctions to understand causation, and that realist trials are unfeasible because participants and contexts will be insufficiently diverse to enable the testing of context-mechanism-outcome configurations. In this paper, we reflect on analyses of qualitative and quantitative data from the Initiating Change Locally in Bullying and Aggression through the School Environment (INCLSUIVE) trial, and whether these are useful and aligned with realism. We summarise the concerns expressed by realists and reflect on the philosophical and practical challenges that we encountered and whether or not they are related to the trial’s design. Finally, we reflect on the trial’s weaknesses and highlight areas that future researchers might consider when running realist trials. We conclude that realist randomised controlled trials are philosophically coherent, practically feasible, and can produce nuanced findings.

Introduction. The Safer Prescribing and Care for the Elderly (SPACE) cluster randomised controlled trial in 39 general practices found that a search of the practice database to identify and generate for each general practitioner (GP) a list of patients with high-risk prescribing, pharmacist-delivered one-on-one feedback to GPs, and electronic tick-box for GPs to select action for each patient (Patient letter; No letter but possible medication review when patient next in; No action), prompted safer prescribing at 6 months but not at 1 year. Aim. This process evaluation explores research participation, intervention uptake and effect on GPs. Methods. Mixed methods were used including quantitative data (log of practice recruitment, demographic data, intervention delivery and GP responses including tick-box selections) and qualitative data (trial pharmacist reflective journal). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and general inductive analysis, respectively. Results. Recruitment of general practices was challenging, with only 39% of eligible practices agreeing to participate. Those who declined were often 'too busy'. Engagement was also challenging, especially in larger practices, with the trial pharmacist managing to meet with only 64% of GPs in the intervention group. The GPs who did engage were positive about the intervention, but elected to send letters to only 23% of patients with high-risk prescribing, either because the high-risk prescribing had already stopped, the GP did not agree the prescribing was 'high-risk' or the GP was concerned a letter would upset the patient. Conclusions. Effectiveness of the SPACE cluster randomised controlled trial could be improved by changes including ensuring searches are current and relevant, repeating cycles of search and feedback, and integrating pharmacists into general practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Access to protocols and statistical analysis plans (SAPs) increases the transparency of randomised trial by allowing readers to identify and interpret unplanned changes to study methods, however they are often not made publicly available. We sought to determine how often study investigators would share unavailable documents upon request.Methods: We used trials from two previously identified cohorts (cohort 1: 101 trials published in high impact factor journals between January and April of 2018; cohort 2: 100 trials published in June 2018 in journals indexed in PubMed) to determine whether study investigators would share unavailable protocols/SAPs upon request. We emailed corresponding authors of trials with no publicly available protocol or SAP up to four times.Results: Overall, 96 of 201 trials (48%) across the two cohorts had no publicly available protocol or SAP (11/101 high-impact cohort, 85/100 PubMed cohort). In total, 8/96 authors (8%) shared some trial documentation (protocol only [n = 5]; protocol and SAP [n = 1]; excerpt from protocol [n = 1]; research ethics application form [n = 1]). We received protocols for 6/96 trials (6%), and a SAP for 1/96 trial (1%). Seventy-three authors (76%) did not respond, 7 authors responded (7%) but declined to share a protocol or SAP, and eight email addresses were invalid (8%). A total of 329 emails were sent (an average of 41 emails for every trial which sent documentation). After emailing authors, the total number of trials with an available protocol increased by only 3%, from 52% in to 55%.Conclusions: Most study investigators did not share their unpublished protocols or SAPs upon direct request. Alternative strategies are needed to increase transparency of randomised trials and ensure access to protocols and SAPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Randomised trials, especially those intended to directly inform clinical practice and policy, should be designed to reflect all those who could benefit from the intervention under test should it prove effective. This does not always happen. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) INCLUDE project identified many groups in the UK that are under-served by trials, including ethnic minorities.This guidance document presents four key recommendations for designing and running trials that include the ethnic groups needed by the trial. These are (1) ensure eligibility criteria and recruitment pathway do not limit participation in ways you do not intend, (2) ensure your trial materials are developed with inclusion in mind, (3) ensure staff are culturally competent and (4) build trusting partnerships with community organisations that work with ethnic minority groups. Each recommendation comes with best practice advice, public contributor testimonials, examples of the inclusion problem tackled by the recommendation, or strategies to mitigate the problem, as well as a collection of resources to support implementation of the recommendations.We encourage trial teams to follow the recommendations and, where possible, evaluate the strategies they use to implement them. Finally, while our primary audience is those designing, running and reporting trials, we hope funders, grant reviewers and approvals agencies may also find our guidance useful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Functional cognitive disorder (FCD) may be common after a concussion, and no evidence-based treatment options are available. The current study evaluated the feasibility of a novel cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) protocol tailored to FCD after concussion., Methods: Participants were randomised to CBT (n=11) or the current standard of care, cognitive rehabilitation (n=13). Both interventions consisted of eleven 50 min manualised videoconference sessions. CBT involved cognitive reappraisal and exposure-based strategies. Cognitive rehabilitation involved traditional memory compensation strategy training. Prespecified feasibility criteria were set for recruitment, perceived credibility, patient adherence, therapist protocol compliance and retention. The primary efficacy outcome was the Multifactorial Memory Questionnaire-Satisfaction (MMQ-S). The first five CBT completers completed a semistructured interview about their experience with the intervention., Results: Most feasibility benchmarks were met, as 86% of invited patients consented, 96% of participants rated their intervention as credible, participants attended 96% of sessions, therapists covered all essential content in 94% of sessions and 100% of participants completed the post-treatment evaluation. Both groups improved on the MMQ-S. Post-treatment MMQ-S scores were similar between groups (Cohen's d=-0.05 (95% CI [-0.86, 0.75])). Two themes resulted from the qualitative data analysis, which highlighted aspects of the CBT interventions that participants valued., Implications: This pilot trial supports the feasibility of CBT tailored to FCD after concussion and suggests that patients with FCD may benefit from either CBT or standard cognitive rehabilitation. A larger trial is needed to evaluate the efficacy of these interventions for FCD after concussion and potentially FCD in other clinical contexts., Trial Registration Number: NCT05581810., Competing Interests: JL received a Michael Smith Scholar Award. DLP has received honoraria for continuing medical education lectures; royalties from Springer for a textbook and honoraria from Elsevier for another textbook; is on the editorial boards of Brain and Behavior (paid), Epilepsy & Behavior, The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, and Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology; receives funding from the Sidney R. Baer Jr. Foundation and NIH unrelated to this work and is on the FND Society Board, American Neuropsychiatric Association Advisory Council and the FND Hope International Medical Advisory Board. NDS has received research funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada Foundation for Innovation, Ontario Brain Institute, Weston Brain Institute and VGH+UBC Hospital Foundation. He has also received honoraria for continuing medical education lectures., (Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a peripheral nerve disorder characterised by weakness and sensory loss. We assessed the neonatal Fc receptor inhibitor rozanolixizumab for CIDP management., Methods: CIDP01 (NCT03861481) was a randomised, subject-blind, investigator-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2a study. Adults with definite or probable CIDP receiving subcutaneous or intravenous immunoglobulin maintenance therapy were randomised 1:1 to 12 once-weekly subcutaneous infusions of rozanolixizumab 10 mg/kg or placebo, stratified according to previous immunoglobulin administration route. Investigators administering treatment and assessing efficacy, and patients, were blinded. The primary outcome was a change from baseline (CFB) to day 85 in inflammatory Rasch-built Overall Disability Scale (iRODS) score. Eligible patients who completed CIDP01 entered the open-label extension CIDP04 (NCT04051944)., Results: In CIDP01, between 26 March 2019 and 31 March 2021, 34 patients were randomised to rozanolixizumab or placebo (17 (50%) each). No significant difference in CFB to day 85 in iRODS centile score was observed between rozanolixizumab (least squares mean 2.0 (SE 3.2)) and placebo (3.4 (2.6); difference -1.5 (90% CI -7.5 to 4.5)). Overall, 14 (82%) patients receiving rozanolixizumab and 13 (76%) receiving placebo experienced a treatment-emergent adverse event during the treatment period. Across CIDP01 and CIDP04, rozanolixizumab was well tolerated over up to 614 days; no clinically meaningful efficacy results were seen. No deaths occurred., Conclusions: Rozanolixizumab did not show efficacy in patients with CIDP in this study, although this could be due to a relatively high placebo stability rate. Rozanolixizumab was well tolerated over medium-to-long-term weekly use, with an acceptable safety profile., Competing Interests: Competing interests: LQ received research grants from Instituto de Salud Carlos III–Ministry of Economy and Innovation (Spain), CIBERER, GBS-CIDP Foundation International, Grifols, Roche and UCB Pharma; provided expert testimony to Annexon, argenx, Avilar Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Johnson and Johnson, Lundbeck, Lumanity, Merck, Novartis, Octapharma, Roche, Takeda, Sanofi Genzyme and UCB Pharma; serves on the Clinical Trial Steering Committee for Sanofi Genzyme. JDS, TD, TL and THR: report no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. MR served as a consultant and received research support from Alexion and Allergan; received research support from Anelixis Therapeutics, Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Biohaven, Catalyst, MediciNova, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Momenta (now Johnson and Johnson), Orion, Ra Pharmaceuticals (now UCB Pharma), Seikagaku, Shire Takeda, UCB Pharma and Viela Bio (now Horizon Therapeutics). H-PH received honoraria for serving on steering and data monitoring committees of Bayer Healthcare, Biogen, BMS Celgene, GeNeuro, Merck, Novartis, Octapharma, Roche, TG Therapeutics and UCB Pharma. PK was an employee and shareholder of UCB Pharma during the conduct of the study but is now retired. SS is an employee and shareholder of UCB Pharma. DM was a contractor employed by UCB Pharma during the conduct of this study, but is currently employed by IQVIA. AB was an employee and shareholder of UCB Pharma during the conduct of the study but is currently employed at Otsuka Pharmaceutical Commercialization and Development. A-OC and UM are employees and shareholders of UCB Pharma. FE reports grants from ZonMw (Dutch Governmental Agency) and Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds; he also reports grants from CSL Behring, the GBS-CIDP Foundation, Grifols, Kedrion, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company and Terumo BCT, all outside the submitted work; grants were paid to his institution and were used for investigator-initiated studies within INCbase, an international CIDP registry; in addition, he has received consultancy fees from CSL Behring, Grifols and UCB Pharma, paid to his institution., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Debates persist regarding the optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in coronary artery disease (CAD). Recent trials have introduced a novel approach involving P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with ticagrelor or clopidogrel, after a short DAPT. However, the effectiveness and safety of this strategy remains to be established. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis comparing monotherapy with P2Y12 inhibitors versus standard DAPT in patients undergoing PCI at 12 months., Methods: Multiple databases were searched. Six RCTs with a total of 24877 patients were included. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 12 months of follow-up. The secondary endpoints were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, probable or definite stent thrombosis, stroke events, and major bleeding. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024499529)., Results: Monotherapy with P2Y12 inhibitor ticagrelor significantly reduced both allcause mortality (HR 0.71, 95 CI [0.55-0.91], P = 0.007) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.66, 95% CI [0.49-0.89], P = 0.006) compared to standard DAPT. In contrast, clopidogrel monotherapy did not demonstrate a similar reduction. The decrease in mortality associated with ticagrelor was primarily due to a lower risk of major bleeding (HR 0.56, 95% CI [0.43-0.72], P < 0.001), while the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) remained unchanged (HR 0.90, 95% CI [0.73-1.11], P = 0.32). The risk of stroke was found to be similar across treatments., Conclusions: In comparison to standard DAPT, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with ticagrelor may lead to a reduced mortality. The clinical benefits are driven by a reduction of bleeding risk without ischemic risk trade-off., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr. Tantry has received honoraria from Wolters Kluwer Pharma. Dr. Farkouh received research grant support from Astra Zeneca and Novartis and served as a consultant to Otitopic. Dr. Gurbel has received consulting fees and/or honoraria from Bayer, Vectura/Otitopic, Janssen, Cleveland Clinic foundation, Wolters Kluwer Pharma, Web MD Medscape, Baron and Budd, Premier Health Care Resource, Baim Institute, and Medforce; institutional research grants from Accriva Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cronos, Haemonetics, Hikari Dx, Idorisa, Labcorp Drug Development, Novartis, Prolocor, Recor Medical, Vectura Limited, Zoll Medical Corporation; in addition, Dr. Gurbel has two patents, Detection of restenosis risk in patients issued and Assessment of cardiac health and thrombotic risk in a patient. Dr. Gurbel was an expert witness in a lawsuit associated with Plavix. Dr Bonaca has received consulting fees/honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo, outside the submitted work. oung-Hoon Jeong reports honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Daiichi Sankyo, Otsuka, Han-mi Pharmaceuticals, Yuhan Pharmaceuticals, and research grants or support from AstraZeneca, Han-mi Pharmaceuticals, Yuhan Pharmaceuticals, and Haemonetics. Dr Navarese received speaker fees from Astra-Zeneca, outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract Background While patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials is beneficial and mandated by some funders, formal guidance on how to implement PPI is limited and challenges have been reported. We aimed to investigate how PPI is approached within a UK Clinical Trials Unit (CTU)’s portfolio of randomised controlled trials, perceived barriers to/facilitators of its successful implementation, and perspectives on the CTU’s role in PPI. Methods A mixed-methods study design, involving (1) an online survey of 26 trial managers (TMs) and (2) Interviews with Trial Management Group members and public contributors from 8 case-study trials. Quantitative survey data were summarised using descriptive statistics and interview transcripts analysed thematically. Two public contributors advised throughout and are co-authors. Results (1) 21 TMs completed the survey; (2) 19 in-depth interviews were conducted with public contributors (n=8), TMs (n=5), chief investigators (n=3), PPI coordinators (n=2) and a researcher. 15/21 TMs surveyed reported that a public contributor was on the trial team, and 5 used another PPI method. 12/21 TMs reported that public contributors were paid (range £10–50/h). 5 TMs reported that training was provided for public contributors and few staff members had received any formal PPI training. The most commonly reported tasks undertaken by public contributors were the review of participant-facing materials/study documents and advising on recruitment/retention strategies. Public contributors wanted and valued feedback on changes made due to their input, but it was not always provided. Barriers to successful PPI included recruitment challenges, group dynamics, maintaining professional boundaries, negative attitudes to PPI amongst some researchers, a lack of continuity of trial staff, and the academic environment. Successful PPI required early and explicit planning, sharing of power and ownership of the trial with public contributors, building and maintaining relationships, and joint understanding and clarity about expectations/roles. CTUs have an important role to play in supporting recruitment, signposting and coordinating PPI. Conclusions While highly valuable, PPI in trials is currently variable. PPI representatives are recruited informally, may not be provided with any training and are paid inconsistently across trials. Study findings can help optimise PPI in trials and ensure researchers and public contributors are adequately supported.

Background: The last 20 years have seen a marked increase in the use of cluster randomised trials (CRTs) in schools to evaluate interventions for improving pupil health outcomes. Schools have limited resources and participating in full-scale trials can be challenging and costly, given their main purpose is education. Feasibility studies can be used to identify challenges with implementing interventions and delivering trials. This systematic review summarises methodological characteristics and objectives of school-based cluster randomised feasibility studies in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE from inception to 31 December 2020. Eligible papers were school-based feasibility CRTs that included health outcomes measured on pupils. Results: Of 3285 articles identified, 24 were included. School-based feasibility CRTs have been increasingly used in the UK since the first publication in 2008. Five (21%) studies provided justification for the use of the CRT design. Three (13%) studies provided details of a formal sample size calculation, with only one of these allowing for clustering. The median (IQR; range) recruited sample size was 7.5 (4.5 to 9; 2 to 37) schools and 274 (179 to 557; 29 to 1567) pupils. The most common feasibility objectives were to estimate the potential effectiveness of the intervention (n = 17; 71%), assess acceptability of the intervention (n = 16; 67%), and estimate the recruitment/retention rates (n = 15; 63%). Only one study was used to assess whether cluster randomisation was appropriate, and none of the studies that randomised clusters before recruiting pupils assessed the possibility of recruitment bias. Besides potential effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and the intra-cluster correlation coefficient, no studies quantified the precision of the feasibility parameter estimates. Conclusions: Feasibility CRTs are increasingly used in schools prior to definitive trials of interventions for improving health in pupils. The average sample size of studies included in this review would be large enough to estimate pupil-level feasibility parameters (e.g., percentage followed up) with reasonable precision. The review highlights the need for clearer sample size justification and better reporting of the precision with which feasibility parameters are estimated. Better use could be made of feasibility CRTs to assess challenges that are specific to the cluster design. Trial registration: PROSPERO: CRD42020218993. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: At the 2015 REWARD/EQUATOR conference on research waste, the late Doug Altman revealed that his only regret about his 1994 BMJ paper 'The scandal of poor medical research' was that he used the word 'poor' rather than 'bad'. But how much research is bad? And what would improve things?Main Text: We focus on randomised trials and look at scale, participants and cost. We randomly selected up to two quantitative intervention reviews published by all clinical Cochrane Review Groups between May 2020 and April 2021. Data including the risk of bias, number of participants, intervention type and country were extracted for all trials included in selected reviews. High risk of bias trials was classed as bad. The cost of high risk of bias trials was estimated using published estimates of trial cost per participant. We identified 96 reviews authored by 546 reviewers from 49 clinical Cochrane Review Groups that included 1659 trials done in 84 countries. Of the 1640 trials providing risk of bias information, 1013 (62%) were high risk of bias (bad), 494 (30%) unclear and 133 (8%) low risk of bias. Bad trials were spread across all clinical areas and all countries. Well over 220,000 participants (or 56% of all participants) were in bad trials. The low estimate of the cost of bad trials was £726 million; our high estimate was over £8 billion. We have five recommendations: trials should be neither funded (1) nor given ethical approval (2) unless they have a statistician and methodologist; trialists should use a risk of bias tool at design (3); more statisticians and methodologists should be trained and supported (4); there should be more funding into applied methodology research and infrastructure (5).Conclusions: Most randomised trials are bad and most trial participants will be in one. The research community has tolerated this for decades. This has to stop: we need to put rigour and methodology where it belongs - at the centre of our science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Marketing is a core business function in commercial companies but is also frequently used by not-for-profit organisations. Marketing focuses on understanding what people value to make choices about engaging with a product or service: a concept also key to understanding why people may choose to engage with a clinical trial. Understanding the needs and values of stakeholders, whether they are participants, staff at recruiting sites or policy-makers, is critical for a clinical trial to be a success. As many trials fail to recruit and retain participants, perhaps it is time for us to consider approaches from other disciplines. Though clinical trial teams may consider evidence- and non-evidence-based recruitment and retention strategies, this is rarely done in a systematic, streamlined way and is often in response to challenges once the trial has started. In this short commentary, we argue the need for a formal marketing approach to be applied to clinical trials, from the outset, as a potential prevention to recruitment and retention problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence to support the use of many retention strategies in clinical trials is lacking. Despite this, trial teams still need to have some form of retention strategy in their trials to try and avoid high attrition rates. This study aimed to estimate how much this lack of retention evidence might be costing trials in Ireland and the UK.Methods: We selected the top ten most routinely used retention strategies by Clinical Trial Units in the UK and made assumptions as to how each of these strategies was most likely to be implemented and the costs involved in doing this. We applied our costing model to a hypothetical trial scenario in both Ireland and the UK as well as to three published trial protocols. We developed the costing model and calculated the costs in Microsoft Excel.Results: Retention strategies were often poorly specified, meaning we had to make assumptions about implementation and in some cases about the strategy itself. Based on our assumptions, some retention strategies can be extremely expensive; some of the costliest strategies included "data collection scheduled with routine care" (€900-€32,503.25), "a timeline of participant visits for sites"-with integrated participant reminder (€304.74-€14,803.70), and "routine site visits by CTU staff" and "investigator meetings face to face", both costing (€777.67-€14,753.48). Others such as "telephone reminders for questionnaire response" (€34.58-€568.62), "a timeline of participant visits for sites"-site reminder alone (€79.18-€112.23), and "targeted recruitment of sites/GPs" (€30-€1620) were less costly compared to the other strategies.Discussion: The resources invested in the use of some retention strategies may outweigh known or imagined benefits on retention. Where benefits are currently unknown, evaluation should be a priority.Conclusion: More evaluation of the effectiveness and cost of trial retention strategies is needed to avoid widespread use of strategies that are both expensive and ineffective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) show considerable variation in symptoms. Treatments targeting an overall improvement in symptomatology may not address what the majority of patients consider to be most important. Here, we propose a composite endpoint for ALS clinical trials that weighs the improvement in symptoms compared with what the patient population actually wants.Methods: An online questionnaire was sent out to a population-based registry in The Netherlands. Patients with ALS were asked to score functional domains with a validated self-reported questionnaire, and rank the order of importance of each domain. This information was used to estimate variability in patient preferences and to develop the Patient-Ranked Order of Function (PROOF) endpoint.Results: There was extensive variability in patient preferences among the 433 responders. The majority of the patients (62.1%) preferred to prioritise certain symptoms over others when evaluating treatments. The PROOF endpoint was established by comparing each patient in the treatment arm to each patient in the placebo arm, based on their preferred order of functional domains. PROOF averages all pairwise comparisons, and reflects the probability that a patient receiving treatment has a better outcome on domains that are most important to them, compared with a patient receiving placebo. By means of simulation we illustrate how incorporating patient preference may upgrade or downgrade trial results.Conclusions: The PROOF endpoint provides a balanced patient-focused analysis of the improvement in function and may help to refine the risk-benefit assessment of new treatments for ALS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Cluster randomised trials (CRTs) are increasingly used to evaluate non-pharmacological interventions for improving child health. Although methodological challenges of CRTs are well documented, the characteristics of school-based CRTs with pupil health outcomes have not been systematically described. Our objective was to describe methodological characteristics of these studies in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods MEDLINE was systematically searched from inception to 30th June 2020. Included studies used the CRT design in schools and measured primary outcomes on pupils. Study characteristics were described using descriptive statistics. Results Of 3138 articles identified, 64 were included. CRTs with pupil health outcomes have been increasingly used in the UK school setting since the earliest included paper was published in 1993; 37 (58%) studies were published after 2010. Of the 44 studies that reported information, 93% included state-funded schools. Thirty six (56%) were exclusively in primary schools and 24 (38%) exclusively in secondary schools. Schools were randomised in 56 studies, classrooms in 6 studies, and year groups in 2 studies. Eighty percent of studies used restricted randomisation to balance cluster-level characteristics between trial arms, but few provided justification for their choice of balancing factors. Interventions covered 11 different health areas; 53 (83%) included components that were necessarily administered to entire clusters. The median (interquartile range) number of clusters and pupils recruited was 31.5 (21 to 50) and 1308 (604 to 3201), respectively. In half the studies, at least one cluster dropped out. Only 26 (41%) studies reported the intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) of the primary outcome from the analysis; this was often markedly different to the assumed ICC in the sample size calculation. The median (range) ICC for school clusters was 0.028 (0.0005 to 0.21). Conclusions The increasing pool of school-based CRTs examining pupil health outcomes provides methodological knowledge and highlights design challenges. Data from these studies should be used to identify the best school-level characteristics for balancing the randomisation. Better information on the ICC of pupil health outcomes is required to aid the planning of future CRTs. Improved reporting of the recruitment process will help to identify barriers to obtaining representative samples of schools.

Abstract After the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic took hold in the UK, the ActWELL trial team’s plans to present the trial results to participants and other stakeholders had to change. Instead of face-face events, three online events were planned and hosted successfully. In this article, we describe the choices made in planning and organisation of the online events including things we would do differently if we were to do it again. We think that online events are a useful platform when informing participants and other stakeholders of the results of your trial, even beyond the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, and we hope this article can help other trial teams to plan their own online events.

Introduction: This scoping review will determine how online, randomised trials with children are conducted. The objectives of the review are: (a) to determine what methods and tools have been used to create and conduct online trials with children and (b) to identify the gaps in the knowledge in this field. Over the last decade, randomised trials employing online methods have gained traction. Decentralised methods lend themselves to certain types of trials and can offer advantages over traditional trial methods, potentially increasing participant reach and diversity and decreasing research waste. However, decentralised trials that have all aspects of the trial exclusively online are not yet common, and those involving children even less so. This scoping review will describe and evaluate the methods used in these trials to understand how they may be effectively employed. Methods: Methods are informed by guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews. The search strategy was developed in consultation with an information specialist for the following databases: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Embase. Grey literature searches will be completed with the consultation of experts in decentralised trials and digital health using internet searches and suitable trial registries. Once identified, included full-text studies’ references will be manually searched for any trials that may have been missed. We will include randomised and quasi-randomised trials conducted exclusively online with participants under the age of 18 published in English. We will not limit by country of conduct or date of publication. Data will be collected using a data charting tool and presented in text, graphical, and tabular formats. Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval is not needed since all data sources used are publicly available. The review will be available as a preprint before publication in an open-access, peer-reviewed journal.

Abstract Background Approximately 418,000 people live in care homes in the UK, yet accessible, robust data on care home populations and organisation are lacking. This hampers our ability to plan, allocate resources or prevent risk. Large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in care homes offer a potential solution. The value of detailed data on residents’ demographics, outcomes and contextual information captured in RCTs has yet to be fully realised. Irrespective of the intervention tested, much of the trial data collected overlaps in terms of structured assessments and descriptive information. Given the time and costs required to prospectively collect data in these populations, pooling anonymised RCT data into a structured repository offers benefit; secondary analyses of pooled RCT data can improve understanding of this under-researched population and enhance the future trial design. This protocol describes the creation of a project-specific repository of individual participant data (IPD) from trials conducted in care homes and subsequent expansion into a legacy dataset for wider use, to address the need for accurate, high-quality IPD on this vulnerable population. Methods Informed by scoping of relevant literature, the principal investigators of RCTs conducted in adult care homes in the UK since 2010 will be invited to contribute trial IPD. Contributing trialists will form a Steering Committee who will oversee data sharing and remain gatekeepers of their own trial’s data. IPD will be cleaned and standardised in consultation with the Steering Committee for accuracy. Planned analyses include a comparison of pooled IPD with point estimates from administrative sources, to assess generalisability of RCT data to the wider care home population. We will also identify key resident characteristics and outcomes from within the trial repository, which will inform the development of a national minimum dataset for care homes. Following project completion, management will migrate to the Virtual Trials Archives, forming a legacy dataset which will be expanded to include international RCTs, and will be accessible to the wider research community for analyses. Discussion Analysis of pooled IPD has the potential to inform and direct future practice, research and policy at low cost, enhancing the value of existing data and reducing research waste. We aim to create a permanent archive for care home trial data and welcome the contribution of emerging trial datasets.

Background: Many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) struggle to recruit, despite valiant efforts. The QRI (QuinteT Recruitment Intervention) uses innovative research methods to optimise recruitment by revealing previously hidden barriers related to the perceptions and experiences of recruiters and patients, and targeting remedial actions. It was designed to be integrated with RCTs anticipating difficulties at the outset. A new version of the intervention (QRI-Two) was developed for RCTs already underway with enrolment shortfalls.Methods: QRIs in 12 RCTs with enrolment shortfalls during 2007-2017 were reviewed to document which of the research methods used could be rapidly applied to successfully identify recruitment barriers. These methods were then included in the new streamlined QRI-Two intervention which was applied in 20 RCTs in the USA and Europe during 2018-2019. The feasibility of the QRI-Two was investigated, recruitment barriers and proposed remedial actions were documented, and the QRI-Two protocol was finalised.Results: The review of QRIs from 2007 to 2017 showed that previously unrecognised recruitment barriers could be identified but data collection for the full QRI required time and resources usually unavailable to ongoing RCTs. The streamlined QRI-Two focussed on analysis of screening/accrual data and RCT documents (protocol, patient-information), with discussion of newly diagnosed barriers and potential remedial actions in a workshop with the RCT team. Four RCTs confirmed the feasibility of the rapid application of the QRI-Two. When the QRI-Two was applied to 14 RCTs underway with enrolment shortfalls, an array of previously unknown/underestimated recruitment barriers related to issues such as equipoise, intervention preferences, or study presentation was identified, with new insights into losses of eligible patients along the recruitment pathway. The QRI-Two workshop enabled discussion of the newly diagnosed barriers and potential remedial actions to improve recruitment in collaboration with the RCT team. As expected, the QRI-Two performed less well in six RCTs at the start-up stage before commencing enrolment.Conclusions: The QRI-Two can be applied rapidly, diagnose previously unrecognised recruitment barriers, and suggest remedial actions in RCTs underway with enrolment shortfalls, providing opportunities for RCT teams to develop targeted actions to improve recruitment. The effectiveness of the QRI-Two in improving recruitment requires further evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]