Acupuncture for Fibromyalgia in Primary Care: A Randomised Controlled Trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 257-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge Vas ◽  
Koldo Santos-Rey ◽  
Reyes Navarro-Pablo ◽  
Manuela Modesto ◽  
Inmaculada Aguilar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Placebo Treatment ◽  
Sham Acupuncture ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Sham Intervention ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Study Participants

Objectives To evaluate the efficacy of an individualised acupuncture protocol for patients with fibromyalgia. Methods Randomised controlled multicentre trial, blinded to participants and to data analysts. Conducted in three primary care centres in southern Spain. A total of 164 participants aged over 17 years and diagnosed with fibromyalgia were enrolled in this trial; 153 participants completed the study. Participants were randomly assigned to either the real intervention (individualised acupuncture, IA) or the sham intervention (sham acupuncture, SA). In both the IA and SA groups, one session per week (lasting 20 min) was provided, in addition to usual pharmacological treatment. The primary outcome was change in pain intensity at 10 weeks. Results Intention-to-treat analysis revealed that the decrease in pain intensity at 10 weeks was greater (p=0.001) in the IA group (−41.0%, 95% CI −47.2% to −34.8%) than in the SA group (−27.1%, 95% CI −33.2% to −20.9%). During the follow-up period, significant differences (p<0.01) in favour of the IA group persisted at 12 months (IA: −19.9%, 95% CI −24.6% to −15.1%; vs SA: −6.2%, 95% CI −11.2% to −1.2%). Conclusions Individualised acupuncture treatment in primary care in patients with fibromyalgia proved efficacious in terms of pain relief, compared with placebo treatment. The effect persisted at 1 year, and its side effects were mild and infrequent. Therefore, the use of individualised acupuncture in patients with fibromyalgia is recommended. Trial Registration Number ISRCTN60217348.

scholarly journals Involving clinical experts in prioritising topics for health technology assessment: a randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. e016104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Cook ◽  
Elke Streit ◽  
Gill Davage
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Cohen’S D ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Review Form ◽  
Response Modes ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Scoring Tool ◽  
Cohen's D

ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to explore whether reducing the material supplied to external experts during peer review and decreasing the burden of response would maintain review quality into prioritising research questions for a major research funder.Methods and analysisClinical experts who agreed to review documents outlining research for potential commissioning were screened for eligibility and randomised in a factorial design to two types of review materials (long document versus short document) and response modes (structured review form versus free text email response). Previous and current members of the funder’s programme groups were excluded. Response quality was assessed by use of a four-point scoring tool and analysed by intention to treat.Results554 consecutive experts were screened for eligibility and 460 were randomised (232 and 228 to long document or short document, respectively; 230 each to structured response or free text). 356 participants provided reviews, 90 did not respond and 14 were excluded after randomisation as not eligible.The pooled mean quality score was 2.4 (SD=0.95). The short document scored 0.037 (Cohen’s d=0.039) extra quality points over the long document arm, and the structured response scored 0.335 (Cohen’s d=0.353) over free text. The allocation did not appear to have any effect on the experts' willingness to engage with the task.ConclusionsNeither providing a short or a long document outlining suggested research was shown to be superior. However, providing a structured form to guide the expert response provided more useful information than allowing free text. The funder should continue to use a structured form to gather responses. It would be acceptable to provide shorter documents to reviewers, if there were reasons to do so.Trial registration numberANZCTR12614000167662.

Developing and Validating a Sham Acupuncture Needle

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 118-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A Tough ◽  
Adrian R White ◽  
Suzanne H Richards ◽  
Brian Lord ◽  
John L Campbell
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Trigger Point ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Sham Acupuncture ◽  
Previous Experience ◽  
Credibility Scale ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Sham Intervention ◽  
Sham Acupuncture Group ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Objectives To develop a sham needle device and test its credibility as a control for acupuncture when used in a randomised controlled trial of myofascial trigger point needling in patients with whiplash associated pain. Methods Sham needles were developed by blunting true acupuncture needles. Whiplash injured patients (<16 weeks duration) were randomly allocated to receive either true acupuncture or the “placebo” sham needle control. The true and sham needling interventions were delivered using the same standardised procedure. Patients were informed that they would receive either real or placebo needles, and asked (i) to state which treatment they believed they had received (treatment belief); (ii) to complete the four item Borkovec and Nau self-assessment credibility scale. Results were compared between groups and the analysis explored whether a patient's previous experience of acupuncture was related to their treatment belief. Other outcomes of the study will be reported elsewhere. Results 20 patients received the true acupuncture and 21 received the sham. There was no significant difference between the treatment beliefs of the two groups (χ 2 = 1.51; p>0.2) nor in the mean item scores on the Borkovec and Nau credibility scale (t test, p values ranged from 0.38 to 0.87). Of the patients in the sham acupuncture group who had previous experience of acupuncture, none recorded receiving the sham intervention. Conclusion Within the context of this pilot study, the sham acupuncture intervention was found to be a credible control for acupuncture. This supports its use in a planned, definitive, randomised controlled trial on a similar whiplash injured population.

Using feeding to reduce pain during vaccination of formula-fed infants: a randomised controlled trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 103 (12) ◽  
pp. 1132-1137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Netty G P Bos-Veneman ◽  
Marrit Otter ◽  
Sijmen A Reijneveld
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Recovery Phase ◽  
Pain Scale ◽  
Formula Feeding ◽  
Full Term ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
The Face ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness and potential side effects of formula feeding to reduce pain during vaccination among infants.Study designIn the setting of well-baby clinics we recruited a community-based sample of full-term born infants who were already formula fed by the choice of the parents (n=48, aged 4–10 weeks) and received their first DTaP-IPV-HepB-Hib and pneumococcal vaccinations and randomised them into two groups. To evaluate pain experienced during vaccination we compared infants who drank formula feeding before, during and after vaccination with infants who did not. Outcomes were observed cry duration and pain scores measured by means of the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS) and the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability (FLACC) scale. Side effects of drinking during vaccination were recorded. We performed intention-to-treat analyses using regression models, crude and adjusted for sex and age of the infant.ResultsPain at the moment of the second injection did not differ between groups. Drinking infants cried 33.5 s shorter (−56.6; −10.3). In the first minute after injection drinking infants experienced a faster pain reduction on the NIPSΔt: regression coefficient 3.86 (95% CI 2.70 to 5.02) and FLACCΔt: 4.42 (95% CI 2.85 to 5.99).ConclusionsIn line with findings of previous studies regarding breast feeding, formula feeding reduced vaccination pain in the recovery phase in full-term born infants receiving their first vaccinations between ages 4 and 10 weeks with no adverse effects. Professionals should discuss this non-costly and feasible pain-reducing intervention with parents of infants who receive vaccinations.Trial registration numberIRCTN 31383, post-results

scholarly journals Maximising trichiasis surgery success (MTSS) trial: rationale and design of a randomised controlled trial to improve trachomatous trichiasis surgical outcomes

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. e036327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Belay Bayissasse ◽  
Kristin M Sullivan ◽  
Shannath L Merbs ◽  
Beatriz Munoz ◽  
Alexander Keil ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Outcomes ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trial ◽  
Upper Eyelid ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Research Ethics Review ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Trachomatous Trichiasis

IntroductionTrachomatous trichiasis (TT) is a condition in which the eyelid turns inward and eyelashes abrade the front part of the eye. To prevent eventual blindness, surgery is recommended. Two surgical procedures are commonly used, bilamellar tarsal rotation (BLTR) and posterior lamellar tarsal rotation (PLTR). Evidence suggests that incision height and surgery type may affect the risk of postoperative TT (PTT) and other surgical outcomes. However, these studies have not prospectively compared the impact of incision height on surgical outcomes.Methods and analysisMaximising trichiasis surgery Success (MTSS) is a three-arm, randomised clinical trial being conducted in Ethiopia. Participants will be randomly assigned on a 1:1:1 basis to BLTR with a 3 mm incision height, BLTR with a 5 mm incision height, or PLTR 3 mm incision height. Patients are eligible for the trial if they have previously unoperated upper eyelid TT. Follow-up visits will be conducted by trained eye examiners at 1 day, 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 12 months after surgery. The primary outcome is incident PTT within 1 year following surgery. Logistic regression will be used in an intention-to-treat analysis to assess outcome incidence by surgical approach.Ethics and disseminationThe University of North Carolina and Johns Hopkins School of Medicine institution review boards, Ethiopian National Research Ethics Review Committee and Ethiopian Food, Medicine, Healthcare and Administration and Control Authority provided ethics approval for the trial. On completion, trial results will be disseminated at local and international meetings and in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT03100747.

scholarly journals Supervised pulmonary tele-rehabilitation versus pulmonary rehabilitation in severe COPD: a randomised multicentre trial

Thorax ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 75 (5) ◽  
pp. 413-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henrik Hansen ◽  
Theresa Bieler ◽  
Nina Beyer ◽  
Thomas Kallemose ◽  
Jon Torgny Wilcke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Rehabilitation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Drop Out ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled

RationalePulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an effective, key standard treatment for people with COPD. Nevertheless, low participant uptake, insufficient attendance and high drop-out rates are reported. Investigation is warranted of the benefits achieved through alternative approaches, such as pulmonary tele-rehabilitation (PTR).ObjectiveTo investigate whether PTR is superior to conventional PR on 6 min walk distance (6MWD) and secondarily on respiratory symptoms, quality of life, physical activity and lower limb muscle function in patients with COPD and FEV1 <50% eligible for routine hospital-based, outpatient PR.MethodsIn this single-blinded, multicentre, superiority randomised controlled trial, patients were assigned 1:1 to 10 weeks of groups-based PTR (60 min, three times weekly) or conventional PR (90 min, two times weekly). Assessments were performed by blinded assessors at baseline, end of intervention and at 22 weeks’ follow-up from baseline. The primary analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle.Measurements and main resultsThe primary outcome was change in 6MWD from baseline to 10 weeks; 134 participants (74 females, mean±SD age 68±9 years, FEV1 33%±9% predicted, 6MWD 327±103 metres) were included and randomised. The analysis showed no between-group differences for changes in 6MWD after intervention (9.2 metres (95% CI: −6.6 to 24.9)) or at 22 weeks’ follow-up (−5.3 metres (95% CI: −28.9 to 18.3)). More participants completed the PTR intervention (n=57) than conventional PR (n=43) (χ2 test p<0.01).ConclusionPTR was not superior to conventional PR on the 6MWD and we found no differences between groups. As more participants completed PTR, supervised PTR would be relevant to compare with conventional PR in a non-inferiority design.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02667171), 28 January 2016.

scholarly journals Randomised controlled non-inferiority trial of primary care-based facilitated access to an alcohol reduction website

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. e014576 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Wallace ◽  
Pierliugi Struzzo ◽  
Roberto Della Vedova ◽  
Francesca Scafuri ◽  
Costanza Tersar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Computer Literacy ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Relative Effectiveness ◽  
Risky Drinking ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Audit Score ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Alcohol Reduction

BackgroundBrief interventions (BIs) delivered in primary care have been shown to be effective in reducing risky drinking, but implementation is limited. Facilitated access to a digital application offers a novel alternative to face-to-face intervention, but its relative effectiveness is unknown.MethodsPrimary care-based, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial comparing general practitioner (GP) facilitated access to an interactive alcohol reduction website (FA) with face-to-face BI for risky drinking. Patients screening positive on the short Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) were invited to participate in the trial. Assessment at baseline, 3 months and 12 months was carried out using AUDIT and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires.Findings58 participating GPs approached 9080 patients of whom 4529 (49.9%) logged on, 3841 (84.8%) undertook screening, 822 (21.4%) screened positive and 763 (19·9%) were recruited. 347 (45.5%) were allocated to FA and 416 (54.5%) to BI. At 3 months, subjects in FA group with an AUDIT score of ≥8 reduced from 95 (27.5%) to 85 (26.8%) while those in BI group increased from 123 (20.6%) to 141 (37%). Differences between groups were principally due to responses to AUDIT question 10. Analysis of primary outcome indicated non-inferiority of FA compared with BI, and prespecified subgroup analysis indicated benefits for older patients and those with higher levels of computer literacy and lower baseline severity. Additional analyses undertaken to take account of bias in response to AUDIT question 10 failed to support non-inferiority within the prespecified 10% boundary.InterpretationPrespecified protocol-driven analyses of the trial indicate that FA is non-inferior to BI; however, identified bias in the outcome measure and further supportive analyses question the robustness of this finding. It is therefore not possible to draw firm conclusions from this trial, and further research is needed to determine whether the findings can be replicated using more robust outcome measures.Trial registration numberNCT01638338; Results.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of an app-based treatment for urinary incontinence in comparison to care as usual in general practice: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial over 12 months

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Loohuis ◽  
Henk van der Worp ◽  
Nienke Wessels ◽  
Janny Dekker ◽  
Marijke Slieker-ten Hove ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Urinary Incontinence ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Mobile Apps ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Objective: Long-term cost-effectiveness of app-based treatment for female stress, urgency, or mixed urinary incontinence (UI) compared to care-as-usual in primary care. Design: A pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial. Setting: Primary care in the Netherlands from 2015 to 2018, follow-up at 12 months. Population: Women with ≥2 UI-episodes per week, access to mobile apps, wanting treatment. 262 women randomised equally to app or care-as-usual; 89 (68%) and 83 (63%) attended follow-up. Methods: The standalone app included conservative management for UI with motivation aids (e.g., reminders). Care-as-usual delivered according to the Dutch GP guideline for UI. Main outcome measures: Effectiveness assessed by the change in symptom severity score (ICIQ-UI-SF) and the change in quality of life (ICIQ-LUTS-QoL, EQ-5D-5L) on superiority with linear regression on an intention-to-treat basis. Cost-effectiveness and -utility from a societal perspective, based on Incontinence Impact Adjusted Life Years (IIALYs) and Quality Adjusted Life years (QALYs). Results: Clinically relevant improvement of UI severity for both app (-2.17 ± 2.81) and care-as-usual (-3.43 ± 3.6), with a non-significant mean difference of 0.903 (-0.66 to 1.871). Costs were lower for app-based treatment with \euro-161 (95%CI: -180 to -151) per year. Cost-effectiveness showed small mean differences in effect for IIALY (0.04) and QALY (-0.03) and thus larger ICER (-3,696) and ICUR (\euro6,379). Conclusion: App-based treatment is a viable alternative to care-as-usual for UI in primary care in terms of long-term cost-effectiveness. Funding: Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw: 837001508), sub-funding P.W. Boer Foundation Dutch Trial Register identifier: Trial NL4948 (www.trialregister.nl/trial/4948).

Comparison of two dose escalation strategies of methotrexate in active rheumatoid arthritis: a multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial

2021 ◽  
pp. annrheumdis-2021-220512
Author(s):  
Siddharth Jain ◽  
Varun Dhir ◽  
Amita Aggarwal ◽  
Ranjan Gupta ◽  
Bidyalaxmi Leishangthem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Drug Discontinuation ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesThere are no head-to-head trials of different dose escalation strategies of methotrexate (MTX) in RA. We compared the efficacy, safety and tolerability of ‘usual’ (5 mg every 4 weeks) versus ‘fast’ (5 mg every 2 weeks) escalation of oral MTX.MethodsThis multicentre, open-label (assessor blinded) RCT included patients 18-55 years of age having active RA with disease duration <5 years, and not on DMARDs. Patients were randomized 1:1 into usual or fast escalation groups, both groups starting MTX at 15 mg/week till a maximum of 25 mg/week. Primary outcome was EULAR good response at 16 weeks, secondary outcomes were ΔDAS28 and adverse effects (AE). Analyses were intention-to-treat.Results178 patients with mean DAS28-CRP of 5.4(1.1) were randomized to usual (n=89) or fast escalation groups (n=89). At 16 weeks, there was no difference in good EULAR response in the usual (28.1%) or fast escalation (22.5%) groups (p=0.8). There was no difference in mean ΔDAS28-CRP at 8 weeks (-0.9, -0.8, p=0.72) or 16 weeks (-1.3, -1.3, p=0.98). Even at 24 weeks (extended follow-up), responses were similar. There were no inter-group differences in ΔHAQ, or MTX-polyglutamates 1-3 levels at 8 or 16 weeks. Gastrointestinal AE were higher in the fast escalation group over initial 8 weeks (27%, 40%, p=0.048), but not over 16 weeks. There was no difference in cytopenias, transaminitis, or drug discontinuation/dose reduction between the groups. No serious AE were seen.ConclusionA faster MTX escalation strategy in RA was not more efficacious over 16-24 weeks, and did not significantly increase AE, except higher gastrointestinal AE initially.Trial registration numberCTRI/2018/12/016549

scholarly journals Influence of overstated abstract conclusions on clinicians: a web-based randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. e018355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiyomi Shinohara ◽  
Takuya Aoki ◽  
Ryuhei So ◽  
Yasushi Tsujimoto ◽  
Aya M Suganuma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Outcome Information ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesTo investigate whether overstatements in abstract conclusions influence primary care physicians’ evaluations when they read reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs)DesignRCT setting: This study was a parallel-group randomised controlled survey, conducted online while masking the study hypothesis.ParticipantsVolunteers were recruited from members of the Japan Primary Care Association in January 2017. We sent email invitations to 7040 primary care physicians. Among the 787 individuals who accessed the website, 622 were eligible and automatically randomised into ‘without overstatement’ (n=307) and ‘with overstatement’ (n=315) groups.InterventionsWe selected five abstracts from published RCTs with at least one non-significant primary outcome and overstatement in the abstract conclusion. To construct a version without overstatement, we rewrote the conclusion sections. The methods and results sections were standardised to provide the necessary information of primary outcome information when it was missing in the original abstract. Participants were randomly assigned to read an abstract either with or without overstatements and asked to evaluate the benefit of the intervention.Outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the participants’ evaluation of the benefit of the intervention discussed in the abstract, on a scale from 0 to 10. A secondary outcome was the validity of the conclusion.ResultsThere was no significant difference between the groups with respect to their evaluation of the benefit of the intervention (mean difference: 0.07, 95% CI −0.28 to 0.42, p=0.69). Participants in the ‘without’ group considered the study conclusion to be more valid than those in the ‘with’ group (mean difference: 0.97, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36, P<0.001).ConclusionThe overstatements in abstract conclusions did not significantly influence the primary care physicians’ evaluations of the intervention effect when necessary information about the primary outcomes was distinctly reported.Trial registration numberUMIN000025317; Pre-results.

scholarly journals Transnasal Humidified Rapid Insufflation Ventilatory Exchange in children requiring emergent intubation (Kids THRIVE): a protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e025997 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shane George ◽  
Susan Humphreys ◽  
Tara Williams ◽  
Ben Gelbart ◽  
Arjun Chavan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Intubation Attempt ◽  
Emergency Intubation ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
High Incidence ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Paediatric Intensive Care Units

IntroductionEmergency intubation of children with abnormal respiratory or cardiac physiology is a high-risk procedure and associated with a high incidence of adverse events including hypoxemia. Successful emergency intubation is dependent on inter-related patient and operator factors. Preoxygenation has been used to maximise oxygen reserves in the patient and to prolong the safe apnoeic time during the intubation phase. Transnasal Humidified Rapid Insufflation Ventilatory Exchange (THRIVE) prolongs the safe apnoeic window for a safe intubation during elective intubation. We designed a clinical trial to test the hypothesis that THRIVE reduces the frequency of adverse and hypoxemic events during emergency intubation in children and to test the hypothesis that this treatment is cost-effective compared with standard care.Methods and analysisThe Kids THRIVE trial is a multicentre randomised controlled trial performed in participating emergency departments and paediatric intensive care units. 960 infants and children aged 0–16 years requiring emergency intubation for all reasons will be enrolled and allocated to THRIVE or control in a 1:1 allocation with stratification by site, age (<1, 1–7 and >7 years) and operator (junior and senior). Children allocated to THRIVE will receive weight appropriate transnasal flow rates with 100% oxygen, whereas children in the control arm will not receive any transnasal oxygen insufflation. The primary outcomes are defined as follows: (1) hypoxemic event during the intubation phase defined as SpO2<90% (patient-dependent variable) and (2) first intubation attempt success without hypoxemia (operator-dependent variable). Analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval for the protocol and consent process has been obtained (HREC/16/QRCH/81). The trial has been actively recruiting since May 2017. The study findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberACTRN12617000147381.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document