Systematic techniques for assisting recruitment to trials (START): study protocol for embedded, randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials play a central role in evidence-based practice, but recruitment of participants, and retention of them once in the trial, is challenging. Moreover, there is a dearth of evidence that research teams can use to inform the development of their recruitment and retention strategies. As with other healthcare initiatives, the fairest test of the effectiveness of a recruitment strategy is a trial comparing alternatives, which for recruitment would mean embedding a recruitment trial within an ongoing host trial. Systematic reviews indicate that such studies are rare. Embedded trials are largely delivered in an ad hoc way, with interventions almost always developed in isolation and tested in the context of a single host trial, limiting their ability to contribute to a body of evidence with regard to a single recruitment intervention and to researchers working in different contexts. METHODS/DESIGN: The Systematic Techniques for Assisting Recruitment to Trials (START) program is funded by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council (MRC) Methodology Research Programme to support the routine adoption of embedded trials to test standardized recruitment interventions across ongoing host trials. To achieve this aim, the program involves three interrelated work packages: (1) methodology - to develop guidelines for the design, analysis and reporting of embedded recruitment studies; (2) interventions - to develop effective and useful recruitment interventions; and (3) implementation - to recruit host trials and test interventions through embedded studies. DISCUSSION: Successful completion of the START program will provide a model for a platform for the wider trials community to use to evaluate recruitment interventions or, potentially, other types of intervention linked to trial conduct. It will also increase the evidence base for two types of recruitment intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The START protocol covers the methodology for embedded trials. Each embedded trial is registered separately or as a substudy of the host trial

Effective-Range Expansion of the Neutron-Deuteron Scattering Studied by a Quark-Model Nonlocal Gaussian Potential

The S-wave effective range parameters of the neutron-deuteron (nd) scattering are derived in the Faddeev formalism, using a nonlocal Gaussian potential based on the quark-model baryon-baryon interaction fss2. The spin-doublet low-energy eigenphase shift is sufficiently attractive to reproduce predictions by the AV18 plus Urbana three-nucleon force, yielding the observed value of the doublet scattering length and the correct differential cross sections below the deuteron breakup threshold. This conclusion is consistent with the previous result for the triton binding energy, which is nearly reproduced by fss2 without reinforcing it with the three-nucleon force.Comment: 21 pages, 6 figures and 6 tables, submitted to Prog. Theor. Phy

Identities of the kauffman monoid K4 and of the Jones Monoid J4

Kauffman monoids Kn and Jones monoids Jn, n=2,3,…, are two families of monoids relevant in knot theory. We prove a somewhat counterintuitive result that the Kauffman monoids K3 and K4 satisfy exactly the same identities. This leads to a polynomial time algorithm to check whether a given identity holds in K4. As a byproduct, we also find a polynomial time algorithm for checking identities in the Jones monoid J4. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020.M. V. Volkov—Supported by Ural Mathematical Center under agreement No. 075-02-2020-1537/1 with the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation

2011 SOSORT guidelines: Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation treatment of idiopathic scoliosis during growth

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The International Scientific Society on Scoliosis Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Treatment (SOSORT), that produced its first Guidelines in 2005, felt the need to revise them and increase their scientific quality. The aim is to offer to all professionals and their patients an evidence-based updated review of the actual evidence on conservative treatment of idiopathic scoliosis (CTIS).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>All types of professionals (specialty physicians, and allied health professionals) engaged in CTIS have been involved together with a methodologist and a patient representative. A review of all the relevant literature and of the existing Guidelines have been performed. Documents, recommendations, and practical approach flow charts have been developed according to a Delphi procedure. A methodological and practical review has been made, and a final Consensus Session was held during the 2011 Barcelona SOSORT Meeting.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The contents of the document are: methodology; generalities on idiopathic scoliosis; approach to CTIS in different patients, with practical flow-charts; literature review and recommendations on assessment, bracing, physiotherapy, Physiotherapeutic Specific Exercises (PSE) and other CTIS. Sixty-five recommendations have been given, divided in the following topics: Bracing (20 recommendations), PSE to prevent scoliosis progression during growth (8), PSE during brace treatment and surgical therapy (5), Other conservative treatments (3), Respiratory function and exercises (3), Sports activities (6), Assessment (20). No recommendations reached a Strength of Evidence level I; 2 were level II; 7 level III; and 20 level IV; through the Consensus procedure 26 reached level V and 10 level VI. The Strength of Recommendations was Grade A for 13, B for 49 and C for 3; none had grade D.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These Guidelines have been a big effort of SOSORT to paint the actual situation of CTIS, starting from the evidence, and filling all the gray areas using a scientific method. According to results, it is possible to understand the lack of research in general on CTIS. SOSORT invites researchers to join, and clinicians to develop good research strategies to allow in the future to support or refute these recommendations according to new and stronger evidence.</p