The effectiveness of interventions to disseminate the results of non-commercial randomised clinical trials to healthcare professionals: a systematic review

Background: It is unclear how to disseminate the results of randomised controlled trials effectively to health professionals and policymakers to improve treatment, care or prevention through changing policy and practice. This systematic review examined the effectiveness of different methods of dissemination of clinical research results to professional audiences. // Methods: We systematically reviewed the published and grey literature from 2000 to 2022 for studies assessing different approaches for disseminating clinical study results to professional audiences (health professionals, policymakers and guideline developers). Two reviewers assessed potentially relevant full texts for inclusion. We grouped studies by intervention type, synthesising findings using effect direction plots. Outcomes were grouped into out-takes (e.g. awareness, knowledge, understanding), outcomes (e.g. attitude changes) and impact (changes in policy/practice). The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. // Results: Our search identified 13,264 unique records, of which 416 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Of 60 studies that were identified as eligible for inclusion, 20 evaluated the effectiveness of interventions to disseminate clinical research results (13 RCTs, 2 observational studies, 3 pre- and post-intervention surveys and 2 cross-sectional surveys). Studies were grouped by intervention: 7 studies that involved face-to-face meetings between the target audience and trained educators were classified as ‘outreach interventions’; 5 studies that provided a summary format for systematic review findings (e.g. summary of findings tables) were grouped together. There was high certainty evidence of a small beneficial impact of outreach interventions on health and moderate certainty evidence of impact on practice (mostly prescribing). There was no evidence of impact on policy and very low certainty around benefits on outcomes and out-takes. We found no consistent benefits of summary formats for systematic review results on outcomes or out-takes (moderate quality evidence). Other interventions with less evidence are reported in the Additional Materials. // Conclusions: Outreach interventions to disseminate clinical research results can lead to changes in practice and improvements in health. However, these interventions can be resource-intensive. Investment is vital to identify and implement effective and cost-effective ways to disseminate results, so that the potential benefits of trials to patients can be realised. // Trial registration: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), CRD42019137364

Measuring the impact of methodological research

Providing evidence of impact highlights the benefits of medical research to society. Such evidence is increasingly requested by research funders and commonly relies on citation analysis. However, other indicators may be more informative. Although frameworks to demonstrate the impact of clinical research have been reported, no complementary framework exists for methodological research. Therefore, we assessed the impact of methodological research projects conducted or completed between 2009 and 2012 at the UK Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit Hub for Trials Methodology Research Hub, with a view to developing an appropriate framework

When participants get involved: reconsidering patient and public involvement in clinical trials at the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials aims to ensure that research is carried out collaboratively with patients and/or members of the public. However, current guidance on involving clinical trial participants in PPI activities is not consistent. METHODS: We reviewed the concept of participant involvement, based on our experience. Two workshops were held at the MRCCTU at UCL with the aim of defining participant involvement, considering its rationale; benefits and challenges; and identifying appropriate models for participant involvement in clinical trials. We considered how participant involvement might complement the involvement of other public contributors. Both workshops were attended by two patient representatives and seven staff members with experience of PPI in trials. Two of the staff members had also been involved in studies that had actively involved participants. They shared details of that work to inform discussions. RESULTS: We defined trial participants as individuals taking part in the study in question, including those who had already completed their trial treatment and/or follow-up. Because of their direct experience, involving participants may offer advantages over other public contributors; for example, in studies of new interventions or procedures, and where it is hard to identify or reach patient or community groups that include or speak for the study population. Participant involvement is possible at all stages of a trial; however, because there are no participants to involve during the design stage of a trial, prior to enrolment, participant involvement should complement and not replace involvement of PPI stakeholders. A range of models, including those with managerial, oversight or responsive roles are appropriate for involving participants; however, involvement in data safety and monitoring committees may not be appropriate where there is a potential risk of unblinding. Involvement of participants can improve the trial experience for other participants; optimising study procedures, improving communications; however, there are some specific, notably, managing participant confidentiality and practicalities relating to payments. CONCLUSIONS: Participant involvement in clinical trials is feasible and complements other forms of PPI in clinical trials. Involving active participants offers significant advantages, particularly in circumstances where trials are assessing new, or otherwise unavailable, therapies or processes. We recommend that current guidance on PPI should be updated to routinely consider including participants as valid stakeholders in PPI and potentially useful approach to PPI

Randomised trial of glutamine, selenium, or both, to supplement parenteral nutrition for critically ill patients

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Diagnostic accuracy of 1p/19q codeletion tests in oligodendroglioma:a comprehensive meta-analysis based on a Cochrane Systematic Review

Codeletion of chromosomal arms 1p and 19q, in conjunction with a mutation in the isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 or 2 gene, is the molecular diagnostic criterion for oligodendroglioma, IDH mutant and 1p/19q codeleted. 1p/19q codeletion is a diagnostic marker and allows prognostication and prediction of the best drug response within IDH‐mutant tumours. We performed a Cochrane review and simple economic analysis to establish the most sensitive, specific and cost‐effective techniques for determining 1p/19q codeletion status. Fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR)‐based loss of heterozygosity (LOH) test methods were considered as reference standard. Most techniques (FISH, chromogenic in situ hybridisation [CISH], PCR, real‐time PCR, multiplex ligation‐dependent probe amplification [MLPA], single nucleotide polymorphism [SNP] array, comparative genomic hybridisation [CGH], array CGH, next‐generation sequencing [NGS], mass spectrometry and NanoString) showed good sensitivity (few false negatives) for detection of 1p/19q codeletions in glioma, irrespective of whether FISH or PCR‐based LOH was used as the reference standard. Both NGS and SNP array had a high specificity (fewer false positives) for 1p/19q codeletion when considered against FISH as the reference standard. Our findings suggest that G banding is not a suitable test for 1p/19q analysis. Within these limits, considering cost per diagnosis and using FISH as a reference, MLPA was marginally more cost‐effective than other tests, although these economic analyses were limited by the range of available parameters, time horizon and data from multiple healthcare organisations

Randomised trial of glutamine and selenium supplemented parenteral nutrition for critically ill patients

Background: Mortality rates in the Intensive Care Unit and subsequent hospital mortality rates in the UK remain high. Infections in Intensive Care are associated with a 2–3 times increased risk of death. It is thought that under conditions of severe metabolic stress glutamine becomes "conditionally essential". Selenium is an essential trace element that has antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Approximately 23% of patients in Intensive Care require parenteral nutrition and glutamine and selenium are either absent or present in low amounts. Both glutamine and selenium have the potential to influence the immune system through independent biochemical pathways. Systematic reviews suggest that supplementing parenteral nutrition in critical illness with glutamine or selenium may reduce infections and mortality. Pilot data has shown that more than 50% of participants developed infections, typically resistant organisms. We are powered to show definitively whether supplementation of PN with either glutamine or selenium is effective at reducing new infections in critically ill patients. Methods/design: 2 × 2 factorial, pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. The trial has an enrolment target of 500 patients. Inclusion criteria include: expected to be in critical care for at least 48 hours, aged 16 years or over, patients who require parenteral nutrition and are expected to have at least half their daily nutritional requirements given by that route. Allocation is to one of four iso-caloric, iso-nitrogenous groups: glutamine, selenium, both glutamine & selenium or no additional glutamine or selenium. Trial supplementation is given for up to seven days on the Intensive Care Unit and subsequent wards if practicable. The primary outcomes are episodes of infection in the 14 days after starting trial nutrition and mortality. Secondary outcomes include antibiotic usage, length of hospital stay, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Discussion: To date more than 285 patients have been recruited to the trial from 10 sites in Scotland. Recruitment is due to finish in August 2008 with a further six months follow up. We expect to report the results of the trial in summer 2009. Trial registration: This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number system. ISRCTN87144826Not peer reviewedPublisher PD