Rationale, study design, and analysis plan of the Alveolar Recruitment for ARDS Trial (ART): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is associated with high in-hospital mortality. Alveolar recruitment followed by ventilation at optimal titrated PEEP may reduce ventilator-induced lung injury and improve oxygenation in patients with ARDS, but the effects on mortality and other clinical outcomes remain unknown. This article reports the rationale, study design, and analysis plan of the Alveolar Recruitment for ARDS Trial (ART). METHODS/DESIGN: ART is a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized (concealed), controlled trial, which aims to determine if maximum stepwise alveolar recruitment associated with PEEP titration is able to increase 28-day survival in patients with ARDS compared to conventional treatment (ARDSNet strategy). We will enroll adult patients with ARDS of less than 72 h duration. The intervention group will receive an alveolar recruitment maneuver, with stepwise increases of PEEP achieving 45 cmH2O and peak pressure of 60 cmH2O, followed by ventilation with optimal PEEP titrated according to the static compliance of the respiratory system. In the control group, mechanical ventilation will follow a conventional protocol (ARDSNet). In both groups, we will use controlled volume mode with low tidal volumes (4 to 6 mL/kg of predicted body weight) and targeting plateau pressure 6430 cmH2O. The primary outcome is 28-day survival, and the secondary outcomes are: length of ICU stay; length of hospital stay; pneumothorax requiring chest tube during first 7 days; barotrauma during first 7 days; mechanical ventilation-free days from days 1 to 28; ICU, in-hospital, and 6-month survival. ART is an event-guided trial planned to last until 520 events (deaths within 28 days) are observed. These events allow detection of a hazard ratio of 0.75, with 90% power and two-tailed type I error of 5%. All analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. DISCUSSION: If the ART strategy with maximum recruitment and PEEP titration improves 28-day survival, this will represent a notable advance to the care of ARDS patients. Conversely, if the ART strategy is similar or inferior to the current evidence-based strategy (ARDSNet), this should also change current practice as many institutions routinely employ recruitment maneuvers and set PEEP levels according to some titration metho

Many Labs 5:Testing pre-data collection peer review as an intervention to increase replicability

Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect (p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3?9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276?3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (?r = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies (r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00?.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19?.50)

CONVOLVULACEAE

Volume: 20Start Page: 62End Page: 6

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2) : a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable