Sequence stratigraphy of the lower Upper Cretaceous Elbtal Group (Cenomanian–Turonian of Saxony, Germany)

A detailed sequence stratigraphic study of the Cenomanian–Turonian strata of the Elbtal Group focussing on new core and outcrop data provided important clues for the understanding of early Late Cretaceous sea-level changes in the Saxonian Cretaceous Basin. Depositional sequence-bounding unconformities have been dated using high-resolution macrofossil biostratigraphy, relying on newly obtained and previously published data, and correlated between individual sections. In the Middle Cenomanian–Late Turonian, seven sequence boundaries (SB Ce 4 and 5, SB Tu 1–5) have been identified that define seven 3-order depositional sequences (DS Ce 4 and 5, DS Ce–Tu 1, DS Tu 2–5). Sequences DS Ce 4 and DS Ce 5 are capped by unconformities SB Ce 4 and SB Ce 5 (latest Middle and mid-Late Cenomanian in age). Their deposition was strongly influenced by pre-transgression palaeo-topography; they can be completely missing on basement highs. DS Ce–Tu 1 (mid-Upper Cenomanian–Early Turonian) started with the major Transgression and onlap continued with a second pulse into the earliest Turonian, finally levelling the pre-existing topography and giving rise to more uniform sedimentation patterns of a graded shelf system during the Turonian. The next sequence boundary is SB Tu 1, a conspicuous unconformity within the Lower–Middle Turonian boundary interval. DS Tu 2 has an early Middle Turonian age. The up-section following sequence DS Tu 3 is of late Middle–earliest Late Turonian age and was characterised by a significant rise in sea-level terminated by a forced regression in the earliest Late Turonian (SB Tu 3, abrupt basinward shift into coarse-grained sandstone facies). Renewed sea-level rise during the early to mid-Late Turonian within DS Tu 4 is documented by a fining trend. A rapid coarsening in grain size in response to strong forced regression resulted in the formation of SB Tu 4 (mid-Late Turonian) and basinward progradation of thick-bedded sandstones in the lower part of DS Tu 5, followed by a major mid-Upper Turonian transgression culminating in a maximum flooding interval equating the Event. Highstand shallowing ended at the late Late Turonian unconformity SB Tu 5. The sequence stratigraphic subdivision of the Elbtal Group compares well to the results of earlier studies and can be translated into the genetic sequence stratigraphy developed for the Bohemian Cretaceous Basin

Family-based cognitive behavioural therapy versus family-based relaxation therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder in children and adolescents (the TECTO trial):a statistical analysis plan for the randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a debilitating psychiatric disorder which affects up to 3% of children and adolescents. OCD in children and adolescents is generally treated with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), which, in more severely affected patients, can be combined with antidepressant medication. The TECTO trial aims to compare the benefits and harms of family-based CBT (FCBT) versus family-based psychoeducation/relaxation training (FPRT) in children and adolescents aged 8 to 17 years. This statistical analysis plan outlines the planned statistical analyses for the TECTO trial. METHODS: The TECTO trial is an investigator-initiated, independently funded, single-centre, parallel-group, superiority randomised clinical trial. Both groups undergo 14 sessions of 75 min each during a period of 16 weeks with either FCBT or FPRT depending on the allocation. Participants are randomised stratified by age and baseline Children’s Yale–Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS) score. The primary outcome is the CY-BOCS score. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life assessed using KIDSCREEN-10 and adverse events assessed by the Negative Effects Questionnaire (NEQ). Primary and secondary outcomes are assessed at the end of the intervention. Continuous outcomes will be analysed using linear regression adjusted for the stratification variables and baseline value of the continuous outcome. Dichotomous outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression adjusted for the stratification variables. The statistical analyses will be carried out by two independent blinded statisticians. DISCUSSION: This statistical analysis plan includes a detailed predefined description of how data will be analysed and presented in the main publication before unblinding of study data. Statistical analysis plans limit selective reporting bias. This statistical analysis plan will increase the validity of the final trial results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03595098. July 23, 2018 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06799-4

Additional file 1 of Family-based cognitive behavioural therapy versus family-based relaxation therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder in children and adolescents (the TECTO trial): a statistical analysis plan for the randomised clinical trial

Additional file 1: Table 1. Participant characteristics. Figure 1. CONSORT flow diagram. Figure 2. Psychopathology and family burden. Figure 3. Response status at 16 weeks. Figure 4. Negative effects questionnaire. Supplemental Table 1. Detailed comorbidities. Supplemental Table 2. Psychopathology and family burden. Supplemental Table 3. Kidscreen-52. Supplemental Timeline. Supplemental Assumptions

Family-based cognitive behavioural therapy versus family-based relaxation therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder in children and adolescents: protocol for a randomised clinical trial (the TECTO trial)

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is the recommended first-line treatment for children and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but evidence concerning treatment-specific benefits and harms compared with other interventions is limited. Furthermore, high risk-of-bias in most trials prevent firm conclusions regarding the efficacy of CBT. We investigate the benefits and harms of family-based CBT (FCBT) versus family-based psychoeducation and relaxation training (FPRT) in youth with OCD in a trial designed to reduce risk-of-bias. METHODS: This is an investigator-initiated, independently funded, single-centre, parallel group superiority randomised clinical trial (RCT). Outcome assessors, data managers, statisticians, and conclusion drawers are blinded. From child and adolescent mental health services we include patients aged 8–17 years with a primary OCD diagnosis and an entry score of ≥16 on the Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS). We exclude patients with comorbid illness contraindicating trial participation; intelligence quotient < 70; or treatment with CBT, PRT, antidepressant or antipsychotic medication within the last 6 months prior to trial entry. Participants are randomised 1:1 to the experimental intervention (FCBT) versus the control intervention (FPRT) each consisting of 14 75-min sessions. All therapists deliver both interventions. Follow-up assessments occur in week 4, 8 and 16 (end-of-treatment). The primary outcome is OCD symptom severity assessed with CY-BOCS at end-of-trial. Secondary outcomes are quality-of-life and adverse events. Based on sample size estimation, a minimum of 128 participants (64 in each intervention group) are included. DISCUSSION: In our trial design we aim to reduce risk-of-bias, enhance generalisability, and broaden the outcome measures by: 1) conducting an investigator-initiated, independently funded RCT; 2) blinding investigators; 3) investigating a representative sample of OCD patients; 3) using an active control intervention (FPRT) to tease apart general and specific therapy effects; 4) using equal dosing of interventions and therapist supervision in both intervention groups; 5) having therapists perform both interventions decided by randomisation; 6) rating fidelity of both interventions; 7) assessing a broad range of benefits and harms with repeated measures. The primary study limitations are the risk of missing data and the inability to blind participants and therapists to the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03595098, registered July 23, 2018. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12888-021-03669-2