Coping with Persistent Pain, Effectiveness Research into Self-management (COPERS): statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled trial

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated

Ideologies and their points of view

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016. It is well known that different arguments appeal to different people. We all process information in ways that are adapted to be consistent with our underlying ideologies. These ideologies can sometimes be framed in terms of particular axes or dimensions, which makes it possible to represent some aspects of an ideology as a region in the kind of vector space that is typical of many generalised quantum models. Such models can then be used to explain and predict, in broad strokes, whether a particular argument or proposal is likely to appeal to an individual with a particular ideology. The choice of suitable arguments to bring about desired actions is traditionally part of the art or science of rhetoric, and today’s highly polarised society means that this skill is becoming more important than ever. This paper presents a basic model for understanding how different goals will appeal to people with different ideologies, and thus how different rhetorical positions can be adopted to promote the same desired outcome. As an example, we consider different narratives and hence actions with respect to the environment and climate change, an important but currently highly controversial topic

Accounting for centre-effects in multicentre trials with a binary outcome - when, why, and how?

BACKGROUND: It is often desirable to account for centre-effects in the analysis of multicentre randomised trials, however it is unclear which analysis methods are best in trials with a binary outcome. METHODS: We compared the performance of four methods of analysis (fixed-effects models, random-effects models, generalised estimating equations (GEE), and Mantel-Haenszel) using a re-analysis of a previously reported randomised trial (MIST2) and a large simulation study. RESULTS: The re-analysis of MIST2 found that fixed-effects and Mantel-Haenszel led to many patients being dropped from the analysis due to over-stratification (up to 69% dropped for Mantel-Haenszel, and up to 33% dropped for fixed-effects). Conversely, random-effects and GEE included all patients in the analysis, however GEE did not reach convergence. Estimated treatment effects and p-values were highly variable across different analysis methods. The simulation study found that most methods of analysis performed well with a small number of centres. With a large number of centres, fixed-effects led to biased estimates and inflated type I error rates in many situations, and Mantel-Haenszel lost power compared to other analysis methods in some situations. Conversely, both random-effects and GEE gave nominal type I error rates and good power across all scenarios, and were usually as good as or better than either fixed-effects or Mantel-Haenszel. However, this was only true for GEEs with non-robust standard errors (SEs); using a robust ‘sandwich’ estimator led to inflated type I error rates across most scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: With a small number of centres, we recommend the use of fixed-effects, random-effects, or GEE with non-robust SEs. Random-effects and GEE with non-robust SEs should be used with a moderate or large number of centres

Risk of selection bias in randomised trials

Background: Selection bias occurs when recruiters selectively enrol patients into the trial based on what the next treatment allocation is likely to be. This can occur even if appropriate allocation concealment is used if recruiters can guess the next treatment assignment with some degree of accuracy. This typically occurs in unblinded trials when restricted randomisation is implemented to force the number of patients in each arm or within each centre to be the same. Several methods to reduce the risk of selection bias have been suggested; however, it is unclear how often these techniques are used in practice. Methods: We performed a review of published trials which were not blinded to assess whether they utilised methods for reducing the risk of selection bias. We assessed the following techniques: (a) blinding of recruiters; (b) use of simple randomisation; (c) avoidance of stratification by site when restricted randomisation is used; (d) avoidance of permuted blocks if stratification by site is used; and (e) incorporation of prognostic covariates into the randomisation procedure when restricted randomisation is used. We included parallel group, individually randomised phase III trials published in four general medical journals (BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine) in 2010. Results: We identified 152 eligible trials. Most trials (98%) provided no information on whether recruiters were blind to previous treatment allocations. Only 3% of trials used simple randomisation; 63% used some form of restricted randomisation, and 35% did not state the method of randomisation. Overall, 44% of trials were stratified by site of recruitment; 27% were not, and 29% did not report this information. Most trials that did stratify by site of recruitment used permuted blocks (58%), and only 15% reported using random block sizes. Many trials that used restricted randomisation also included prognostic covariates in the randomisation procedure (56%). Conclusions: The risk of selection bias could not be ascertained for most trials due to poor reporting. Many trials which did provide details on the randomisation procedure were at risk of selection bias due to a poorly chosen randomisation methods. Techniques to reduce the risk of selection bias should be more widely implemented

Critical care admission following elective surgery was not associated with survival benefit: prospective analysis of data from 27 countries

PURPOSE: As global initiatives increase patient access to surgical treatments, there is a need to define optimal levels of perioperative care. Our aim was to describe the relationship between the provision and use of critical care resources and postoperative mortality. METHODS: Planned analysis of data collected during an international 7-day cohort study of adults undergoing elective in-patient surgery. We used risk-adjusted mixed-effects logistic regression models to evaluate the association between admission to critical care immediately after surgery and in-hospital mortality. We evaluated hospital-level associations between mortality and critical care admission immediately after surgery, critical care admission to treat life-threatening complications, and hospital provision of critical care beds. We evaluated the effect of national income using interaction tests. RESULTS: 44,814 patients from 474 hospitals in 27 countries were available for analysis. Death was more frequent amongst patients admitted directly to critical care after surgery (critical care: 103/4317 patients [2%], standard ward: 99/39,566 patients [0.3%]; adjusted OR 3.01 [2.10–5.21]; p < 0.001). This association may differ with national income (high income countries OR 2.50 vs. low and middle income countries OR 4.68; p = 0.07). At hospital level, there was no association between mortality and critical care admission directly after surgery (p = 0.26), critical care admission to treat complications (p = 0.33), or provision of critical care beds (p = 0.70). Findings of the hospital-level analyses were not affected by national income status. A sensitivity analysis including only high-risk patients yielded similar findings. CONCLUSIONS: We did not identify any survival benefit from critical care admission following surgery

The Growing Climate Divide

Climate change has reached the level of a scientific consensus, but has not yet reached the level of a social consensus. The major obstacle towards achieving that end is the increasing partisan and ideological polarization between conservatives/Republicans and liberals/Democrats over interpretations of climate science.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/136184/1/1351_Hoffman.pd

Assessing potential sources of clustering in individually randomised trials

Recent reviews have shown that while clustering is extremely common in individually randomised trials (for example, clustering within centre, therapist, or surgeon), it is rarely accounted for in the trial analysis. Our aim is to develop a general framework for assessing whether potential sources of clustering must be accounted for in the trial analysis to obtain valid type I error rates (non-ignorable clustering), with a particular focus on individually randomised trials

Core pinning by intragranular nanoprecipitates in polycrystalline MgCNi_3

The nanostructure and magnetic properties of polycrystalline MgCNi_3 were studied by x-ray diffraction, electron microscopy, and vibrating sample magnetometry. While the bulk flux-pinning force curve F_p(H) indicates the expected grain-boundary pinning mechanism just below T_c = 7.2 K, a systematic change to pinning by a nanometer-scale distribution of core pinning sites is indicated by a shift of F_p(H) with decreasing temperature. The lack of scaling of F_p(H) suggests the presence of 10 to 20% of nonsuperconducting regions inside the grains, which are smaller than the diameter of fluxon cores 2xi at high temperature and become effective with decreasing temperature when xi(T) approaches the nanostructural scale. Transmission electron microscopy revealed cubic and graphite nanoprecipitates with 2 to 5 nm size, consistent with the above hypothesis since xi(0) = 6 nm. High critical current densities, more than 10^6 A/cm^2 at 1 T and 4.2 K, were obtained for grain colonies separated by carbon. Dirty-limit behavior seen in previous studies may be tied to electron scattering by the precipitates, indicating the possibility that strong core pinning might be combined with a technologically useful upper critical field if versions of MgCNi_3 with higher T_c can be found.Comment: 5 pages, 6 figures, submitted to PR