3,048 research outputs found

    Sample size calculations for cluster randomised controlled trials with a fixed number of clusters

    Get PDF
    Background\ud Cluster randomised controlled trials (CRCTs) are frequently used in health service evaluation. Assuming an average cluster size, required sample sizes are readily computed for both binary and continuous outcomes, by estimating a design effect or inflation factor. However, where the number of clusters are fixed in advance, but where it is possible to increase the number of individuals within each cluster, as is frequently the case in health service evaluation, sample size formulae have been less well studied. \ud \ud Methods\ud We systematically outline sample size formulae (including required number of randomisation units, detectable difference and power) for CRCTs with a fixed number of clusters, to provide a concise summary for both binary and continuous outcomes. Extensions to the case of unequal cluster sizes are provided. \ud \ud Results\ud For trials with a fixed number of equal sized clusters (k), the trial will be feasible provided the number of clusters is greater than the product of the number of individuals required under individual randomisation (nin_i) and the estimated intra-cluster correlation (ρ\rho). So, a simple rule is that the number of clusters (κ\kappa) will be sufficient provided: \ud \ud κ\kappa > nin_i x ρ\rho\ud \ud Where this is not the case, investigators can determine the maximum available power to detect the pre-specified difference, or the minimum detectable difference under the pre-specified value for power. \ud \ud Conclusions\ud Designing a CRCT with a fixed number of clusters might mean that the study will not be feasible, leading to the notion of a minimum detectable difference (or a maximum achievable power), irrespective of how many individuals are included within each cluster. \ud \u

    Participant recruitment to FiCTION, a primary dental care trial – survey of facilitators and barriers

    Get PDF
    Objective To identify reasons behind a lower than expected participant recruitment rate within the FiCTION trial, a multi-centre paediatric primary dental care randomised controlled trial (RCT). Subjects (materials) and methods An online survey, based on a previously published tool, consisting of both quantitative and qualitative responses, completed by staff in dental practices recruiting to FiCTION. Ratings from quantitative responses were aggregated to give overall scores for factors related to participant recruitment. Qualitative responses were independently grouped into themes. Results Thirty-nine anonymous responses were received. Main facilitators related to the support received from the central research team and importance of the research question. The main barriers related to low child eligibility rates and the integration of trial processes within routine workloads. Conclusions These findings have directed strategies for enhancing participant recruitment at existing practices and informed recruitment of further practices. The results help provide a profile of the features required of practices to successfully screen and recruit participants. Future trials in this setting should consider the level of interest in the research question within practices, and ensure trial processes are as streamlined as possible. Research teams should actively support practices with participant recruitment and maintain enthusiasm among the entire practice team

    Consensus-based antimicrobial resistance and stewardship competencies for UK undergraduate medical students.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: In the UK there is limited coverage of antimicrobial stewardship across postgraduate curricula and evidence that final year medical students have insufficient and inconsistent antimicrobial stewardship teaching. A national undergraduate curriculum for antimicrobial resistance and stewardship is required to standardize an adequate level of understanding for all future doctors. OBJECTIVES: To provide a UK national consensus on competencies for antimicrobial resistance and stewardship for undergraduate medical education. METHODS: Using the modified Delphi method over two online survey rounds, an expert panel comprising leads for infection teaching from 25 UK medical schools reviewed competency descriptors for antimicrobial resistance and stewardship education. RESULTS: There was a response rate of 100% with all 28 experts who agreed to take part completing both survey rounds. Following the first-round survey, of the initial 55 descriptors, 43 reached consensus (78%). The second-round survey included the 12 descriptors from the first round in which agreement had not been reached, four amended descriptors and 12 new descriptors following qualitative feedback from the panel members. Following the second-round survey, a total of 58 consensus-based competency descriptors within six overarching domains were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus-based competency descriptors defined here can be used to inform standards, design curricula, develop assessment tools and direct UK undergraduate medical education

    Intra-amniotic delivery of CFTR-expressing adenovirus does not reverse cystic fibrosis phenotype in inbred CFTR-knockout mice

    Get PDF
    This article is available open access through the publisher’s website at the link below. Copyright © 2008 The American Society of Gene Therapy.Due to its early onset and severe prognosis, cystic fibrosis (CF) has been suggested as a candidate disease for in utero gene therapy. In 1997, a study was published claiming that to how transient prenatal expression of CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) from an in utero –injected adenovirus vector could achieve permanent reversal of the CF intestinal pathology in adult CF knockout mice, despite the loss of CFTR transgene expression by birth. This would imply that the underlying cause of CF is a prenatal defect for which lifelong cure can be achieved by transient prenatal expression of CFTR. Despite criticism at the time of publication, no independent verification of this contentious finding has been published so far. This is vital for the development of future therapeutic strategies as it may determine whether CF gene therapy should be performed prenatally or postnatally. We therefore reinvestigated this finding with an identical adenoviral vector and a knockout CF mouse line (CftrtmlCam) with a completely inbred genetic background to eliminate any effects due to genetic variation. After delivery of the CFTR-expressing adenovirus to the fetal mouse, both vector DNA and transgenic CFTR expression were detected in treated animals postpartum but statistically no significant difference in survival was observed between the Cftr–/– mice treated with the CFTR-adenovirus and those treated with the control vector.Sport Aiding Medical Research for Kids, the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, and the Katharine Dormandy Trust

    Pralidoxime in Acute Organophosphorus Insecticide Poisoning-A Randomised Controlled Trial

    Get PDF
    Background: Poisoning with organophosphorus (OP) insecticides is a major global public health problem, causing an estimated 200,000 deaths each year. Although the World Health Organization recommends use of pralidoxime, this antidote's effectiveness remains unclear. We aimed to determine whether the addition of pralidoxime chloride to atropine and supportive care offers benefit. Methods and Findings: We performed a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial of pralidoxime chloride (2 g loading dose over 20 min, followed by a constant infusion of 0.5 g/h for up to 7 d) versus saline in patients with organophosphorus insecticide self-poisoning. Mortality was the primary outcome; secondary outcomes included intubation, duration of intubation, and time to death. We measured baseline markers of exposure and pharmacodynamic markers of response to aid interpretation of clinical outcomes. Two hundred thirty-five patients were randomised to receive pralidoxime (121) or saline placebo (114). Pralidoxime produced substantial and moderate red cell acetylcholinesterase reactivation in patients poisoned by diethyl and dimethyl compounds, respectively. Mortality was nonsignificantly higher in patients receiving pralidoxime: 30/121 (24.8%) receiving pralidoxime died, compared with 18/114 (15.8%) receiving placebo (adjusted hazard ratio HR] 1.69, 95% confidence interval CI] 0.88-3.26, p = 0.12). Incorporating the baseline amount of acetylcholinesterase already aged and plasma OP concentration into the analysis increased the HR for patients receiving pralidoxime compared to placebo, further decreasing the likelihood that pralidoxime is beneficial. The need for intubation was similar in both groups (pralidoxime 26/121 21.5%], placebo 24/114 21.1%], adjusted HR 1.27 95% CI 0.71-2.29]). To reduce confounding due to ingestion of different insecticides, we further analysed patients with confirmed chlorpyrifos or dimethoate poisoning alone, finding no evidence of benefit. Conclusions: Despite clear reactivation of red cell acetylcholinesterase in diethyl organophosphorus pesticide poisoned patients, we found no evidence that this regimen improves survival or reduces need for intubation in patients with organophosphorus insecticide poisoning. The reason for this failure to benefit patients was not apparent. Further studies of different dose regimens or different oximes are required

    Total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis : the TOPKAT RCT

    Get PDF
    Article history The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 08/14/08. The contractual start date was in January 2010. The draft report began editorial review in February 2019 and was accepted for publication in October 2019. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report. Acknowledgements TOPKAT study group Chief investigator David Beard. Trial co-investigators Nigel Arden (Oxford), Helen Campbell (Oxford), Marion Campbell (Aberdeen), Andrew Carr (Oxford), Jonathan Cook (Aberdeen then Oxford), Helen Doll (Oxford), Ray Fitzpatrick (Oxford), David Murray (Oxford) and Andrew Price (Oxford). Trial management Mayret Castillo (until 2011), Cushla Cooper, Loretta Davies, Anne Duncan (until 2017), Gordon Fernie, Sophie Halpin (until 2015) and Alison McDonald. Trial administration Katie Chegwin, Jiyang Li (until 2018), Elena Rabaiotti (until 2013), Sandra Regan (until 2012) and Victoria Stalker (until 2014). Data management Diana Collins (until 2013), Janice Cruden, Akiko Greshon, Kay Holland and Beverley Smith (until 2017). Database/programming management Gladys McPherson. Trial statisticians Charles Boachie (until 2013), Jemma Hudson and Graeme MacLennan. Health economists Helen Campbell (until 2015), Francesco Fusco (until 2018), Seamus Kent and Jose Leal. We would also like to thank Hannah Wilson (DPhil student, University of Oxford) for her help with the update to the literature search. Research teams We are grateful to the participants and research teams at collaborating hospital sites: Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, Royal Gwent Hospital Ruth Jenkins, Mark Lewis [principal investigator (PI)] and Witek Mintowt-Czyz. Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Musgrove Park Hospital, Belfast David Beverland (PI), Leeann Bryce, Julie Catney, Ian Dobie, Emer Doran and Seamus O’Brien. Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Fazal Ali, Heather Cripps, Amanda Whileman, Phil Williams (PI) and Julie Toms. County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust Ellen Brown, Gillian Horner, Andrew Jennings (PI) and Glynis Rose. East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, Royal Blackburn Hospital Frances Bamford, Wendy Goddard, Hans Marynissen (PI), Haleh Peel and Lyndsey Richards. Great Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Swindon Amanda Bell, Sunny Deo, Sarah Grayland, David Hollinghurst, Suzannah Pegler, Venkat Satish (PI) and Claire Woodruffe. Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust, Harrogate Nick London (PI), David Duffy, Caroline Bennett and James Featherstone. Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust Joss Cook, Kim Dearnley, Nagarajan Muthukumar (PI), Laura Onuoha and Sarah Wilson. Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, Medway Sandhu Banher, Eunice Emeakaroha, Jamie Horohan, Sunil Jain (PI) and Susan Thompson. Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust Sarah Buckley, Aaron Ng (PI), Ajit Shetty and Karen Simeson. Milton Keynes University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Julian Flynn, Meryl Newsom, Cheryl Padilla-Harris and Oliver Pearce (PI). NHS Grampian, Woodend Hospital, Aberdeen James Bidwell (PI), Alison Innes, Winifred Culley and Bill Ledingham and Janis Stephen. North Bristol NHS Trust Rachel Bray, Hywel Davies, Debbie Delgado, Jonathan Eldridge, Leigh Morrison, James Murray (PI), Andrew Porteous and James Robinson. North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust, Carlisle Matt Dawson (PI), Raj Dharmarajan, David Elson, Will Hage, Nicci Kelsall and Mike Orr. North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, Stockton-On-Tees Jackie Grosvenor, SS Maheswaran (PI), Claire McCue, Hemanth Venkatesh, Michelle Wild and Deborah Wilson. Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre Chris Dodd, William Jackson (PI), Pam Lovegrove, David Murray, Jennifer Piper and Andrew Price. Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath Neil Bradbury, Lucy Clark, Stefanie Duncan, Genevieve Simpson and Allister Trezies (PI). Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Kings Mill Hospital, Sutton in Ashfield Vikram Desai (PI), Cheryl Heeley, Kramer Guy and Rosalyn Jackson. South Devon Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Torbay Alan Hall, Gordon Higgins (PI), Michael Hockings, David Isaac and Pauline Mercer. Stockport NHS Foundation Trust, Stockport Lindsey Barber, Helen Cochrane, Janette Curtis, Julie Grindey, David Johnson (PI), and Phil Turner. The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Trust David Houlihan-Burne (PI), Briony Hill, Ron Langstaff and Mariam Nasseri. The Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust, Ipswich Mark Bowditch, Chris Martin, Steven Pryke, Bally Purewal, Chris Servant (PI), Sheeba Suresh and Claire Tricker. University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester Robert Ashford, Manjit Attwal, Jeanette Bunga, Urjit Chatterji, Susan Cockburn, Colin Esler (PI), Steven Godsiff, Tim Green, Christina Haines and Subash Tandon. University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust, Stoke on Trent Racquel Carpio, Sarah Griffiths, Natalie Grocott and Ian dos Remedios (PI). University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust David Barrett, Phil Chapman-Sheath, Caroline Grabau, Jane Moghul, William Tice (PI) and Catherine Trevithick. United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Boston Rajiv Deshmukh, Mandy Howes, Kimberley Netherton, Dipak Raj (PI) and Nikki Travis. United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Lincoln Mohammad Maqsood, Rebecca Norton, Farzana Rashid, Alison Raynor, Mark Rowsell and Karen Warner. We would like to thank the external members of the TSC and DMC for their advice and support for the project. Trial Steering Committee Donna Dodwell as our patient representative, Simon Donell (chairperson) (University of East Anglia), Shawn Tavares (Royal Berkshire Hospital) and Jonathan Waite (South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust). Data Monitoring Committee Karen Barker (Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust), Gordon Murray (chairperson) (University of Edinburgh) and Hamish Simpson (University of Edinburgh). Independent review and interpretation of results Professor David Torgerson (University of York). Professor Chris Maher (University of Sydney). Mr Peter Brownson (The Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust). Professor Simon Donell (University of East Anglia, Norwich). Mr Mark Mullins (Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board). Professor Jane Blazeby (Bristol University).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

    SARS-CoV-2-specific memory B cells can persist in the elderly who have lost detectable neutralising antibodies

    Get PDF
    Memory B cells (MBC) can provide a recall response able to supplement waning antibodies with an affinity-matured response better able to neutralise variant viruses. We studied a cohort of elderly care home residents and younger staff (median age 87yrs and 56yrs respectively) who had survived COVID-19 outbreaks with only mild/asymptomatic infection. The cohort was selected to enrich for a high proportion who had lost neutralising antibodies (nAb), to specifically investigate the reserve immunity from SARS-CoV-2-specific MBC in this setting. Class-switched spike and RBD-tetramer-binding MBC persisted five months post-mild/asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, irrespective of age. The majority of spike/RBD-specific MBC had a classical phenotype but activated memory B cells, that may indicate ongoing antigenic stimulation or inflammation, were expanded in the elderly. Spike/RBD-specific MBC remained detectable in the majority who had lost nAb, although at lower frequencies and with a reduced IgG/IgA isotype ratio. Functional spike/S1/RBD-specific recall was also detectable by ELISpot in some who had lost nAb, but was significantly impaired in the elderly. Our findings demonstrate a reserve of SARS-CoV-2-specific MBC persists beyond loss of nAb, but highlight the need for careful monitoring of functional defects in spike/RBD-specific B cell immunity in the elderly

    Mendelian randomization for studying the effects of perturbing drug targets [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]

    Get PDF
    Drugs whose targets have genetic evidence to support efficacy and safety are more likely to be approved after clinical development. In this paper, we provide an overview of how natural sequence variation in the genes that encode drug targets can be used in Mendelian randomization analyses to offer insight into mechanism-based efficacy and adverse effects. Large databases of summary level genetic association data are increasingly available and can be leveraged to identify and validate variants that serve as proxies for drug target perturbation. As with all empirical research, Mendelian randomization has limitations including genetic confounding, its consideration of lifelong effects, and issues related to heterogeneity across different tissues and populations. When appropriately applied, Mendelian randomization provides a useful empirical framework for using population level data to improve the success rates of the drug development pipeline
    corecore