Using e-mail recruitment and an online questionnaire to establish effect size: A worked example

Background\ud Sample size calculations require effect size estimations. Sometimes, effect size estimations and standard deviation may not be readily available, particularly if efficacy is unknown because the intervention is new or developing, or the trial targets a new population. In such cases, one way to estimate the effect size is to gather expert opinion. This paper reports the use of a simple strategy to gather expert opinion to estimate a suitable effect size to use in a sample size calculation.\ud \ud Methods\ud Researchers involved in the design and analysis of clinical trials were identified at the University of Birmingham and via the MRC Hubs for Trials Methodology Research. An email invited them to participate.\ud \ud An online questionnaire was developed using the free online tool 'Survey Monkey©'. The questionnaire described an intervention, an electronic participant information sheet (e-PIS), which may increase recruitment rates to a trial. Respondents were asked how much they would need to see recruitment rates increased by, based on 90%. 70%, 50% and 30% baseline rates, (in a hypothetical study) before they would consider using an e-PIS in their research.\ud \ud Analyses comprised simple descriptive statistics.\ud \ud Results\ud The invitation to participate was sent to 122 people; 7 responded to say they were not involved in trial design and could not complete the questionnaire, 64 attempted it, 26 failed to complete it. Thirty-eight people completed the questionnaire and were included in the analysis (response rate 33%; 38/115). Of those who completed the questionnaire 44.7% (17/38) were at the academic grade of research fellow 26.3% (10/38) senior research fellow, and 28.9% (11/38) professor. Dependent upon the baseline recruitment rates presented in the questionnaire, participants wanted recruitment rate to increase from 6.9% to 28.9% before they would consider using the intervention.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud This paper has shown that in situations where effect size estimations cannot be collected from previous research, opinions from researchers and trialists can be quickly and easily collected by conducting a simple study using email recruitment and an online questionnaire. The results collected from the survey were successfully used in sample size calculations for a PhD research study protocol.\ud \u

Suitability of PSA-detected localised prostate cancers for focal therapy: Experience from the ProtecT study

This article is available through a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Copyright @ 2011 Cancer Research UK.Background: Contemporary screening for prostate cancer frequently identifies small volume, low-grade lesions. Some clinicians have advocated focal prostatic ablation as an alternative to more aggressive interventions to manage these lesions. To identify which patients might benefit from focal ablative techniques, we analysed the surgical specimens of a large sample of population-detected men undergoing radical prostatectomy as part of a randomised clinical trial. Methods: Surgical specimens from 525 men who underwent prostatectomy within the ProtecT study were analysed to determine tumour volume, location and grade. These findings were compared with information available in the biopsy specimen to examine whether focal therapy could be provided appropriately. Results: Solitary cancers were found in prostatectomy specimens from 19% (100 out of 525) of men. In addition, 73 out of 425 (17%) men had multiple cancers with a solitary significant tumour focus. Thus, 173 out of 525 (33%) men had tumours potentially suitable for focal therapy. The majority of these were small, well-differentiated lesions that appeared to be pathologically insignificant (38–66%). Criteria used to select patients for focal prostatic ablation underestimated the cancer's significance in 26% (34 out of 130) of men and resulted in overtreatment in more than half. Only 18% (24 out of 130) of men presumed eligible for focal therapy, actually had significant solitary lesions. Conclusion: Focal therapy appears inappropriate for the majority of men presenting with prostate-specific antigen-detected localised prostate cancer. Unifocal prostate cancers suitable for focal ablation are difficult to identify pre-operatively using biopsy alone. Most lesions meeting criteria for focal ablation were either more aggressive than expected or posed little threat of progression.National Institute for Health Researc

A knowledge translation collaborative to improve the use of therapeutic hypothermia in post-cardiac arrest patients: protocol for a stepped wedge randomized trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Advances in resuscitation science have dramatically improved survival rates following cardiac arrest. However, about 60% of adults that regain spontaneous circulation die before leaving the hospital. Recently it has been shown that inducing hypothermia in cardiac arrest survivors immediately following their arrival in hospital can dramatically improve both overall survival and neurological outcomes. Despite the strong evidence for its efficacy and the apparent simplicity of this intervention, recent surveys show that therapeutic hypothermia is delivered inconsistently, incompletely, and often with delay.</p> <p>Methods and design</p> <p>This study will evaluate a multi-faceted knowledge translation strategy designed to increase the utilization rate of induced hypothermia in survivors of cardiac arrest across a network of 37 hospitals in Southwestern Ontario, Canada. The study is designed as a stepped wedge randomized trial lasting two years. Individual hospitals will be randomly assigned to four different wedges that will receive the active knowledge translation strategy according to a sequential rollout over a number of time periods. By the end of the study, all hospitals will have received the intervention. The primary aim is to measure the effectiveness of a multifaceted knowledge translation plan involving education, reminders, and audit-feedback for improving the use of induced hypothermia in survivors of cardiac arrest presenting to the emergency department. The primary outcome is the proportion of eligible OHCA patients that are cooled to a body temperature of 32 to 34°C within six hours of arrival in the hospital. Secondary outcomes will include process of care measures and clinical outcomes.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Inducing hypothermia in cardiac arrest survivors immediately following their arrival to hospital has been shown to dramatically improve both overall survival and neurological outcomes. However, this lifesaving treatment is frequently not applied in practice. If this trial is positive, our results will have broad implications by showing that a knowledge translation strategy shared across a collaborative network of hospitals can increase the number of patients that receive this lifesaving intervention in a timely manner.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov Trial Identifier: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00683683">NCT00683683</a></p

The place and barriers of evidence based practice: knowledge and perceptions of medical, nursing and allied health practitioners in malaysia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite a recent increase in activities to promote evidence-based practice (EBP), it was unclear how Malaysian hospital practitioners received this new approach in medicine. This study examines their confidence and perceptions on EBP.</p> <p>Findings</p> <p>We conducted cross-sectional surveys using a self-administered questionnaire during two EBP training courses in two Malaysian hospitals in January and June 2007. Our subjects (n = 144) were doctors and nursing and allied health staff (NAH) participating in the EBP courses. Our questionnaire covered three domains: confidence and understanding (six items), attitude (five items) and barriers to practice (four items). We presented simple descriptive statistics, including the sum ratings and the proportions with different responses for each item, and compared different groups using Mann-Whitney U test for scaled ratings and Chi-square test for dichotomous responses.</p> <p>Ninety-two doctors and 52 NAH staff completed the surveys. Overall, doctors expressed slightly higher confidence on EBP compared to NAH staff. Out of a maximum sum rating of 27 over six items, doctors reported an average of 18.3 (SD 3.2) and NAH staff reported an average of 16.0 (SD 3.4), p = 0.002. Doctors were also more positive in their views on EBP. For example, 67.4% of doctors disagreed, but 61% of NAH staff agreed that "the importance of EBP in patient care is exaggerated", and 79.3% of doctors disagreed, but 46.2% of NAH staff agreed that "EBP is too tedious and impractical". Similar responses were observed for other items in the domain.</p> <p>Doctors and NAH staff shared similar concerns on barriers to evidence-based practice. The highest proportions considered poor facilities to access evidence a barrier (76% of doctors and 90% of NAH), followed by poor awareness of evidence (62% of doctors and 70% of NAH) and time constraints (63% of doctors and 68% of NAH), p = 0.09 for the combined rating of four items in the domain.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The findings of our survey suggest a need for greater efforts in promoting EBP among Malaysian hospital practitioners especially for NAH staff. From the responses based on the barriers to EBP, improving facilities for accessing evidence and promoting more user-friendly resources to address time constraints appear to be the priorities.</p

Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines

David Moher and colleagues from the EQUATOR network offer guidance and recommended steps for developing health research reporting guidelines