Recruitment to publicly funded trials - are surgical trials really different?

Good recruitment is integral to the conduct of a high-quality randomised controlled trial. It has been suggested that recruitment is particularly difficult for evaluations of surgical interventions, a field in which there is a dearth of evidence from randomised comparisons. While there is anecdotal speculation to support the inference that recruitment to surgical trials is more challenging than for medical trials we are unaware of any formal assessment of this. In this paper, we compare recruitment to surgical and medical trials using a cohort of publicly funded trials. Data: Overall recruitment to trials was assessed using of a cohort of publicly funded trials (n = 114). Comparisons were made by using the Recruitment Index, a simple measure of recruitment activity for multicentre randomised controlled trials. Recruitment at the centre level was also investigated through three example surgical trials. Results: The Recruitment Index was found to be higher, though not statistically significantly, in the surgical group (n = 18, median = 38.0 IQR (10.7, 77.4)) versus (n = 81, median = 34.8 IQR (11.7, 98.0)) days per recruit for the medical group (median difference 1.7 (− 19.2, 25.1); p = 0.828). For the trials where the comparison was between a surgical and a medical intervention, the Recruitment Index was substantially higher (n = 6, 68.3 (23.5, 294.8)) versus (n = 93, 34.6 (11.7, 90.0); median difference 25.9 (− 35.5, 221.8); p = 0.291) for the other trials. Conclusions: There was no clear evidence that surgical trials differ from medical trials in terms of recruitment activity. There was, however, support for the inference that medical versus surgical trials are more difficult to recruit to. Formal exploration of the recruitment data through a modelling approach may go some way to tease out where important differences exist.The first author was supported by a Medical Research Council UK Fellowship.Peer reviewedAuthor versio

Combining genotypic and phenotypic variation in a geospatial framework to identify sources of mussels in northern New Zealand

The New Zealand green-lipped mussel aquaculture industry is largely dependent on the supply of young mussels that wash up on Ninety Mile Beach (so-called Kaitaia spat), which are collected and trucked to aquaculture farms. The locations of source populations of Kaitaia spat are unknown and this lack of knowledge represents a major problem because spat supply may be irregular. We combined genotypic (microsatellite) and phenotypic (shell geochemistry) data in a geospatial framework to determine if this new approach can help identify source populations of mussels collected from two spat-collecting and four non-spat-collecting sites further south. Genetic analyses resolved differentiated clusters (mostly three clusters), but no obvious source populations. Shell geochemistry analyses resolved six differentiated clusters, as did the combined genotypic and phenotypic data. Analyses revealed high levels of spatial and temporal variability in the geochemistry signal. Whilst we have not been able to identify the source site(s) of Kaitaia spat our analyses indicate that geospatial testing using combined genotypic and phenotypic data is a powerful approach. Next steps should employ analyses of single nucleotide polymorphism markers with shell geochemistry and in conjunction with high resolution physical oceanographic modelling to resolve the longstanding question of the origin of Kaitaia spat

Use of methods for specifying the target difference in randomised controlled trial sample size calculations : Two surveys of trialists' practice

© The Author(s), 2014.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

A randomized trial comparing treatments for varicose veins

Supported by a grant from the Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute for Health Research (06/45/02). The Health Services Research Unit is funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorate. We thank Janice Cruden for her secretarial support and data management; Gladys McPherson and the programming team at the Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials; Tracey Davidson, Lynda Constable, Jackie Ellington, Laura Elliott, and Yvonne Fernie for help with scoring the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire; Luke Vale and Laura Ternent, our original economists in the group; members of the Project Management Group for their ongoing advice and support of the trial; members of the study team (Graeme MacLennan, Maria Prior, and Denise Bolsover) who contributed to the behavioral recovery component of the trial; the independent members of the trial steering committee (Alun Davies [chair], Ian Loftus, and Jane Nixon) and the data and safety monitoring committee (Gerry Stansby [chair], Winston Banya, and Marcus Flather); and the staff members at recruitment sites (see the Supplementary Appendix) who facilitated recruitment, treatment, and follow-up of trial participants.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Improving the Quality of Dentistry (IQuaD):a cluster factorial randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-benefit of oral hygiene advice and/or periodontal instrumentation with routine care for the prevention and management of periodontal disease in dentate adults attending dental primary care

Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Mark Forrest and the programming team at CHaRT; Cynthia Fraser, our information specialist, for assistance with referencing; Moira Swan, who was the dental research nurse and part of the OA team in Newcastle upon Tyne; Louise Campbell for secretarial support and data management; our original statistician in the group, Andy Elders; senior IT manager Gladys Macpherson; senior trial administrator at the TCOD Marilyn Laird; Luke Vale for his involvement with the design of the health economic analysis at the inception of the trial; Maria Dimitrova, who assisted the health economists in the collection of unit costs; staff of the Scottish Primary Care Research Network, who assisted with screening eligible patients at dental practices; staff of the North East Commissioning Support Unit who assisted with research payments to dental practices in the north-east; members of the TMC and Periodontal Advisory Group for their ongoing advice and support of the trial; the independent members of the TSC and DMC; and the staff at recruitment sites who facilitated recruitment, treatment and follow-up of trial participants. The Health Services Research Unit and the Health Economics Research Unit is core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Methods for specifying the target difference in a randomised controlled trial : the Difference ELicitation in TriAls (DELTA) systematic review

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Is speed of healing a good predictor of eventual healing of pyoderma gangrenosum?

Background: Pyoderma gangrenosum is a rare inflammatory skin condition. The STOPGAP studies compared treatments for pyoderma gangrenosum using a primary outcome of healing speed at 6 weeks. Objective: Using data from both studies we assessed the predictive value of three early predictors for healing at 6 months - speed of healing, Investigator Global Assessment and resolution of inflammation, recorded at 2 and 6 weeks. Methods: Logistic regression models were applied and the effectiveness of the three measures was assessed through estimating the positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: The PPV and NPV at 6 weeks were 63.5% (95% CI:52.4%, 73.7%) and 74.6% (95% CI:62.5%, 84.5%) respectively for speed of healing; 80% (95% CI:68.7%, 88.6%) and 74.2% (95% CI:64.1%, 2.7%) for IGA; and 72.1% (95% CI:59.9%, 82.3%) and 68.1% (95% CI:57.7%, 77.3%) for resolution of inflammation. Investigator Global Assessment had the best combined PPV, NPV and AUC at 2 and 6 weeks. Limitations: We were limited by data available from the STOP GAP trial and cohort study. Conclusion: Speed of healing, Investigator Global Assessment and resolution of inflammation were all shown to be good predictors of eventual healing

Osteoarthritis Preoperative Package for care of Orthotics, Rehabilitation, Topical and oral agent Usage and Nutrition to Improve ouTcomes at a Year (OPPORTUNITY); a feasibility study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundPatients’ pre-operative health and physical function is known to influence their post-operative outcomes. In patients with knee osteoarthritis, pharmacological and non-pharmacological options are often not optimised prior to joint replacement. This results in some patients undergoing surgery when they are not as fit as they could be. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a pre-operative package of non-operative care versus standard care prior to joint replacement.Methods/designThis is a multicentre, randomised controlled feasibility trial of patients undergoing primary total knee replacement for osteoarthritis. Sixty patients will be recruited and randomised (2:1) to intervention or standard care arms. Data will be collected at baseline (before the start of the intervention), around the end of the intervention period and a minimum of 90 days after the planned date of surgery. Adherence will be reviewed each week during the intervention period (by telephone or in person). Participants will be randomised to a pre-operative package of non-operative care or standard care. The non-operative care will consist of (1) a weight-loss programme, (2) a set of exercises, (3) provision of advice on analgesia use and (4) provision of insoles. The intervention will be started as soon as possible after patients have been added to the waiting list for joint replacement surgery to take advantage of the incentive for behavioural change that this will create. The primary outcomes of this study are feasibility outcomes which will indicate whether the intervention and study protocol is feasible and acceptable and whether a full-scale effectiveness trial is warranted.The following will be measured and used to inform study feasibility: rate of recruitment, rate of retention at 90-day follow-up review after planned surgery date, and adherence to the intervention estimated through review questionnaires and weight change (for those receiving the weight-loss aspect of intervention). In addition the following information will be assessed qualitatively: analysis of qualitative interviews exploring acceptability, feasibility, adherence and possible barriers to implementing the intervention, and acceptability of the different outcome measures.DiscussionThe aims of the study specifically relate to testing the feasibility and acceptability of the proposed effectiveness trial intervention and the feasibility of the trial methods.This study forms the important first step in developing and assessing whether the intervention has the potential to be assessed in a future fully powered effectiveness trial. The findings will also be used to refine the design of the effectiveness trial.Trial registrationISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN96684272. Registered on 18 April 2018

What punishment expresses

In this article, I consider the question of what punishment expresses and propose a way of approaching the question that overcomes problems in both psychosocial and philosophical expressivist traditions. The problem in both traditions is, I suggest, the need for an adequate moral – neither moralizing nor reductive – psychology, and I argue that Melanie Klein’s work offers such a moral psychology. I offer a reconstruction of Klein’s central claims and begin to sketch some of its potential implications for an expressive account of punishment. I outline a Kleinian interpretation of modern punishment’s expression as of an essentially persecutory nature but also include depressive realizations that have generally proved too difficult for liberal modernity to work through successfully, and the recent ‘persecutory turn’ is a defence against such realizations. I conclude by considering the wider philosophical significance of a Kleinian account for the expressivist theory of punishment

Male synthetic sling versus artificial urinary sphincter trial for men with urodynamic stress incontinence after prostate surgery (MASTER): Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

© 2018 The Author(s). Background: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a frequent adverse effect for men undergoing prostate surgery. A large proportion (around 8% after radical prostatectomy and 2% after transurethral resection of prostate (TURP)) are left with severe disabling incontinence which adversely effects their quality of life and many are reliant on containment measures such as pads (27% and 6% respectively). Surgery is currently the only option for active management of the problem. The overwhelming majority of surgeries for persistent bothersome SUI involve artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) insertion. However, this is expensive, and necessitates manipulation of a pump to enable voiding. More recently, an alternative to AUS has been developed - a synthetic sling for men which elevates the urethra, thus treating SUI. This is thought, by some, to be less invasive, more acceptable and less expensive than AUS but clear evidence for this is lacking. The MASTER trial aims to determine whether the male synthetic sling is non-inferior to implantation of the AUS for men who have SUI after prostate surgery (for cancer or benign disease), judged primarily on clinical effectiveness but also considering relative harms and cost-effectiveness. Methods/design: Men with urodynamic stress incontinence (USI) after prostate surgery, for whom surgery is judged appropriate, are the target population. We aim to recruit men from secondary care urological centres in the UK NHS who carry out surgery for post-prostatectomy incontinence. Outcomes will be assessed by participant-completed questionnaires and 3-day urinary bladder diaries at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months. The 24-h urinary pad test will be used at baseline as an objective assessment of urine loss. Clinical data will be completed at the time of surgery to provide details of the operative procedures, complications and resource use in hospital. At 12 months, men will also have a clinical review to evaluate the results of surgery (including another 24-h pad test) and to identify problems or need for further treatment. Discussion: A robust examination of the comparative effectiveness of the male synthetic sling will provide high-quality evidence to determine whether or not it should be adopted widely in the NHS