scholarly journals Management of haemothoraces in blunt thoracic trauma: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. e020378 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A Carver ◽  
Alexsander K Bressan ◽  
Colin Schieman ◽  
Sean C Grondin ◽  
Andrew W Kirkpatrick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Thoracic Trauma ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Expectant Management ◽  
Common Source ◽  
Blunt Thoracic Trauma ◽  
Chest Drainage ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionHaemothorax following blunt thoracic trauma is a common source of morbidity and mortality. The optimal management of moderate to large haemothoraces has yet to be defined. Observational data have suggested that expectant management may be an appropriate strategy in stable patients. This study aims to compare the outcomes of patients with haemothoraces following blunt thoracic trauma treated with either chest drainage or expectant management.Methods and analysisThis is a single-centre, dual-arm randomised controlled trial. Patients presenting with a moderate to large sized haemothorax following blunt thoracic trauma will be assessed for eligibility. Eligible patients will then undergo an informed consent process followed by randomisation to either (1) chest drainage (tube thoracostomy) or (2) expectant management. These groups will be compared for the rate of additional thoracic interventions, major thoracic complications, length of stay and mortality.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the institution’s research ethics board and registered withClinicalTrials.gov.All eligible participants will provide informed consent prior to randomisation. The results of this study may provide guidance in an area where there remains significant variation between clinicians. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences.Trial registration numberNCT03050502.

scholarly journals Performance of biological mesh materials in abdominal wall reconstruction: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e024091 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A Carver ◽  
Andrew W Kirkpatrick ◽  
Tammy L Eberle ◽  
Chad G Ball
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Abdominal Wall ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Abdominal Wall Reconstruction ◽  
Hernia Recurrence ◽  
Biological Mesh ◽  
Common Source ◽  
Porcine Dermis ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionAbdominal wall hernias are a common source of morbidity and mortality. The use of biological mesh has become an important adjunct in successful abdominal wall reconstruction. There are a variety of biological mesh products available; however, there is limited evidence supporting the use of one type over another. This study aims to compare the performance (eg, the rate of hernia recurrence) of either a crosslinked biological mesh product or a non-crosslinked product in patients undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction.Methods and analysisThis is a single-centre, dual arm randomised controlled trial. Patients requiring abdominal wall reconstruction will be assessed for eligibility. Eligible patients will then undergo an informed consent process following by randomisation to either (1) crosslinked porcine dermis mesh (Permacol); or (2) non-crosslinked porcine dermis mesh (Strattice). These groups will be compared for the rate of hernia recurrence at 1 and 2 years as well as the rate of postoperative complications (eg, surgical site infections).Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the institution’s research ethics board and registered with clinicaltrials.gov. All eligible participants will provide informed consent prior to randomization. The results of this study may help guide the choice of biologic mesh for this population. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals as well as national and international conferences.Trial registration numberNCT02703662.

scholarly journals An external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care (PolyPrime): study protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Audrey Rankin ◽  
◽  
Cathal A. Cadogan ◽  
Heather E. Barry ◽  
Evie Gardner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Older People ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Online Video ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background The use of multiple medications (polypharmacy) is a concern in older people (≥65 years) and is associated with negative health outcomes. For older populations with multimorbidity, polypharmacy is the reality and the key challenge is ensuring appropriate polypharmacy (as opposed to inappropriate polypharmacy). This external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) aims to further test a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care in two jurisdictions, Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI). Methods Twelve GP practices across NI (n=6) and the six counties in the ROI that border NI will be randomised to either the intervention or usual care group. Members of the research team have developed an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change. The intervention consists of two components: (1) an online video which demonstrates how a GP may prescribe appropriate polypharmacy during a consultation with an older patient and (2) a patient recall process, whereby patients are invited to scheduled medication review consultations with GPs. Ten older patients receiving polypharmacy (≥4 medications) will be recruited per GP practice (n=120). GP practices allocated to the intervention arm will be asked to watch the online video and schedule medication reviews with patients on two occasions; an initial and a 6-month follow-up appointment. GP practices allocated to the control arm will continue to provide usual care to patients. The study will assess the feasibility of recruitment, retention and study procedures including collecting data on medication appropriateness (from GP records), quality of life and health service use (i.e. hospitalisations). An embedded process evaluation will assess intervention fidelity (i.e. was the intervention delivered as intended), acceptability of the intervention and potential mechanisms of action. Discussion This pilot cRCT will provide evidence of the feasibility of a range of study parameters such as recruitment and retention, data collection procedures and the acceptability of the intervention. Pre-specified progression criteria will also be used to determine whether or not to proceed to a definitive cRCT. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN41009897. Registered 19 November 2019. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04181879. Registered 02 December 2019.

scholarly journals PEP-CoV protocol: a PEP flute-self-care randomised controlled trial to prevent respiratory deterioration and hospitalisation in early COVID-19

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e050582
Author(s):  
Annette Mollerup ◽  
Sofus Christian Larsen ◽  
Anita Selmer Bennetzen ◽  
Marius Henriksen ◽  
Mette Kildevaeld Simonsen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Hospital Admission ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Self Care ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
At Home

IntroductionInfection with SARS-CoV-2 may progress to severe pulmonary disease, COVID-19. Currently, patients admitted to hospital because of COVID-19 have better prognosis than during the first period of the pandemic due to improved treatment. However, the overall societal susceptibility of being infected makes it pivotal to prevent severe courses of disease to avoid high mortality rates and collapse of the healthcare systems. Positive expiratory pressure (PEP) self-care is used in chronic pulmonary disease and has been shown to prevent pneumonia in a high-risk cohort of patients with leukaemia. PEP flute self-care to prevent respiratory deterioration and hospitalisation in early COVID-19: a randomised trial (The PEP-CoV trial) examines the effectiveness on respiratory symptoms and need of hospital admission by regular PEP flute use among non-hospitalised individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms.Methods and analysisIn this randomised controlled trial, we hypothesise that daily PEP flute usage as add-on to usual care is superior to usual care as regards symptom severity measured by the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) at 30-day follow-up (primary outcome) and hospital admission through register data (secondary outcome). We expect to recruit 400 individuals for the trial. Participants in the intervention group receive a kit of 2 PEP flutes and adequate resistances and access to instruction videos. A telephone hotline offers possible contact to a nurse. The eight-item CAT score measures cough, phlegm, chest tightness, dyspnoea, activities of daily living at home, feeling safe at home despite symptoms, sleep quality and vigour. The CAT score is measured daily in both intervention and control arms by surveys prompted through text messages.Ethics and disseminationThe study was registered prospectively at www.clinicaltrials.gov on 27 August 2020 (NCT04530435). Ethical approval was granted by the local health research ethics committee (Journal number: H-20035929) on 23 July 2020. Enrolment of participants began on 6 October 2020. Results will be published in scientific journals.Trial registration numberNCT04530435; Pre-results.

scholarly journals Optimising medication management in children and young people with ADHD using a computerised test (QbTest): a feasibility randomised controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Williams ◽  
Charlotte L. Hall ◽  
Sue Brown ◽  
Boliang Guo ◽  
Marilyn James ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Young People ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Medication Management ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Global Functioning ◽  
Children And Young People ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) should be closely monitored to ensure optimisation. There is growing interest in using computerised assessments of ADHD symptoms to support medication monitoring. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy of one such computerised assessment, the Quantified Behavior (Qb) Test, as part of medication management for ADHD. Methods This feasibility multi-site RCT conducted in child and adolescent mental health and community paediatric settings recruited participants aged 6–15 years diagnosed with ADHD starting stimulant medication. Participants were randomised into one of two arms: experimental (QbTest protocol) where participants completed a QbTest at baseline and two follow-up QbTests on medication (2–4 weeks and 8–10 weeks later) and control where participants received treatment as usual, including at least two follow-up consultations. Measures of parent, teacher, and clinician-rated symptoms and global functioning were completed at each time point. Clinicians recorded treatment decision-making and health economic measures were obtained. Data were analysed using multi-level modelling and participants (children and parents) and clinicians were interviewed about their experiences, resulting data were thematically analysed. Results Forty-four children and young people were randomised. Completion of study outcome measures by care-givers and teachers ranged from 52 to 78% at baseline to 47–65% at follow-up. Participants reported the questionnaires to be useful to complete. SNAP-IV inattention scores showed greater reduction in the intervention than the control group (− 5.85, 95% CI − 10.33, − 1.36,). Engagement with the intervention ranged from 100% at baseline, to 78% follow-up 1 and 57% follow-up 2. However, only 37% of QbTests were conducted in the correct time period. Interview data highlighted that the objectivity of the QbTest was appreciated by clinicians and parents. Clinicians commented that the additional time and resources required meant that it is not feasible to use QbTest for all cases. Conclusion The trial design and protocol appear to be feasible and acceptable but could be improved by modifying QbTest time periods and the method of data collection. With these changes, the protocol may be appropriate for a full trial. Adding QbTest may improve symptom outcome as measured by SNAP-IV. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03368573, prospectively registered, 11th December 2017, and ISRCTN, ISRCTN69461593, retrospectively registered, 10th April 2018

scholarly journals Protocol for an economic evaluation of the randomised controlled trial of culprit lesion only PCI versus immediate multivessel PCI in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: CULPRIT-SHOCK trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. e014849 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahidul Quayyum ◽  
Andrew Briggs ◽  
Jose Robles-Zurita ◽  
Keith Oldroyd ◽  
Uwe Zeymer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Culprit Lesion ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Trial Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionEmergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion for patients with acute myocardial infarctions is an accepted practice. A majority of patients present with multivessel disease with additional relevant stenoses apart from the culprit lesion. In haemodynamically stable patients, there is increasing evidence from randomised trials to support the practice of immediate complete revascularisation. However, in the presence of cardiogenic shock, the optimal management strategy for additional non-culprit lesions is unknown. A multicentre randomised controlled trial, CULPRIT-SHOCK, is examining whether culprit vessel only PCI with potentially subsequent staged revascularisation is more effective than immediate multivessel PCI. This paper describes the intended economic evaluation of the trial.Methods and analysisThe economic evaluation will be conducted using a pre-trial decision model and within-trial analysis. The modelling-based analysis will provide expected costs and health outcomes, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio over the lifetime for the cohort of patients included in the trial. The within-trial analysis will provide estimates of cost per life saved at 30 days and in 1 year, and estimates of health-related quality of life. Bootstrapping and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves will be used to address any uncertainty around these estimates. Different types of regression models within a generalised estimating equation framework will be used to examine how the total cost and quality-adjusted life years are explained by patients’ characteristics, revascularisation strategy, country and centre. The cost-effectiveness analysis will be from the perspective of each country’s national health services, where costs will be expressed in euros adjusted for purchasing power parity.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for the study was granted by the local Ethics Committee at each recruiting centre. The economic evaluation analyses will be published in peer-reviewed journals of the concerned literature and communicated through the profiles of the authors atwww.twitter.comandwww.researchgate.net.Trial registration numberNCT01927549; Pre-results.

scholarly journals Protocol for a factorial randomised controlled trial, embedded within WHiTE 8 COPAL, of an Enhanced Trainee Principal Investigator Package and Additional Digital Nudge to increase recruitment rates

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 1153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nickil Agni ◽  
Caroline Fairhurst ◽  
Catriona McDaid ◽  
Mike Reed ◽  
David Torgerson
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Positive Reinforcement ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Educational Programme ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Recruitment Rate ◽  
Principal Investigators ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Recruitment remains an issue when conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a significant proportion of studies failing to reach their target sample size. Studies evaluating interventions to improve recruitment aimed specifically at recruiters to the trial are limited in number. This factorial RCT will evaluate the effectiveness of an educational intervention to trainee principal investigators and a positive reinforcement intervention via an email nudge on increasing recruitment. The targeted recruiters will be in 20 centres nationally recruiting to one large orthopaedic randomised controlled trial, WHiTE 8 COPAL. Centres will be randomised via minimisation to one of four groups. The primary outcome is recruitment rate in the first six months that a centre is actively recruiting, with data being analysed via a Poisson regression model. Results will be presented as adjusted incidence rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Secondary outcomes relate to the feasibility and logistics of running the interventions.  We will also collect feedback regarding the educational programme set out for the trainee principal investigators. The study started in August 2018 with the anticipation of the primary objective endpoint by October 2019. The results of this study will be used to inform the design of future RCTs, particularly in orthopaedics in the UK, where the role of Trainee Principal Investigators is now a consistent one across different trials. Trial registration: 11600053, ISRCTN, 20/08/2018; SWAT 67, Northern Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research SWAT repository, 01/10/2017.

scholarly journals Improving cardiometabolic and mental health in women with gestational diabetes mellitus and their offspring: study protocol forMySweetHeart Trial, a randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e020462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antje Horsch ◽  
Leah Gilbert ◽  
Stefano Lanzi ◽  
Justine Gross ◽  
Bengt Kayser ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Gestational Diabetes ◽  
Gestational Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Health Need ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) carries prenatal and perinatal risk for the mother and her offspring as well as longer-term risks for both the mother (obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease) and her child (obesity, type 2 diabetes). Compared with women without GDM, women with GDM are twice as likely to develop perinatal or postpartum depression. Lifestyle interventions for GDM are generally limited to physical activity and/or nutrition, often focus separately on the mother or the child and take place either during or after pregnancy, while their results are inconsistent. To increase efficacy of intervention, the multifactorial origins of GDM and the tight link between mental and metabolic as well as maternal and child health need to be heeded. This calls for an interdisciplinary transgenerational approach starting in, but continuing beyond pregnancy.Methods and analysisThis randomised controlled trial will assess the effect of a multidimensional interdisciplinary lifestyle and psychosocial intervention aimed at improving the metabolic and mental health of 200 women with GDM and their offspring. Women with GDM at 24–32 weeks gestational age who understand French or English, and their offspring and partners can participate. The intervention components will be delivered on top of usual care during pregnancy and the first year postpartum. Metabolic and mental health outcomes will be measured at 24–32 weeks of pregnancy, shortly after birth and at 6–8 weeks and 1 year after childbirth. Data will be analysed using intention-to-treat analyses. TheMySweetHeart Trialis linked to theMySweetHeart Cohort(clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02872974).Ethics and disseminationWe will disseminate the findings through regional, national and international conferences and through peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT02890693; Pre-results.

scholarly journals Update on the EFFECTS study of fluoxetine for stroke recovery: a randomised controlled trial in Sweden

Trials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik Lundström ◽  
◽  
Eva Isaksson ◽  
Per Näsman ◽  
Per Wester ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Severe Heart Failure ◽  
Stroke Recovery ◽  
Neurological Deficits ◽  
Exclusion Criterion ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Studies have suggested that fluoxetine might improve neurological recovery after stroke, but the results remain inconclusive. The EFFECTS (Efficacy oF Fluoxetine – a randomisEd Controlled Trial in Stroke) reached its recruitment target of 1500 patients in June 2019. The purpose of this article is to present all amendments to the protocol and describe how we formed the EFFECTS trial collaboration in Sweden. Methods In this investigator-led, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, we enrolled non-depressed stroke patients aged 18 years or older between 2 and 15 days after stroke onset. The patients had a clinical diagnosis of stroke (ischaemic or intracerebral haemorrhage) with persisting focal neurological deficits. Patients were randomised to fluoxetine 20 mg or matching placebo capsules once daily for 6 months. Results Seven amendments were made and included clarification of drug interaction between fluoxetine and metoprolol and the use of metoprolol for severe heart failure as an exclusion criterion, inclusion of data from central Swedish registries and the Swedish Stroke Register, changes in informed consent from patients, and clarification of design of some sub-studies. EFFECTS recruited 1500 patients at 35 centres in Sweden between 20 October 2014 and 28 June 2019. We plan to unblind the data in January 2020 and report the primary outcome in May 2020. Conclusion EFFECTS will provide data on the safety and efficacy of 6 months of treatment with fluoxetine after stroke in a Swedish health system setting. The data from EFFECTS will also contribute to an individual patient data meta-analysis. Trial registration EudraCT 2011-006130-16. Registered on 8 August 2014. ISRCTN, ISRCTN13020412. Registered on 19 December 2014. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02683213. Retrospectively registered on 2 February 2016.

scholarly journals Promoting Independence in Dementia (PRIDE): protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial

Trials ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aisha Shafayat ◽  
Emese Csipke ◽  
Lucy Bradshaw ◽  
Georgina Charlesworth ◽  
Florence Day ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Mild Dementia ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Feasibility Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Memory services often see people with early stage dementia who are largely independent and able to participate in community activities but who run the risk of reducing activities and social networks. PRIDE is a self-management intervention designed to promote living well and enhance independence for people with mild dementia. This study aims to examine the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the PRIDE intervention offered in addition to usual care or with usual care alone. Methods/design PRIDE is a parallel, two-arm, multicentre, feasibility, randomised controlled trial (RCT). Eligible participants aged 18 or over who have mild dementia (defined as a score of 0.5 or 1 on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale) who can participate in the intervention and provide informed consent will be randomised (1:1) to treatment with the PRIDE intervention delivered in addition to usual care, or usual care only. Participants will be followed-up at 3 and 6 month’s post-randomisation. There will be an option for a supporter to join each participant. Each supporter will be provided with questionnaires at baseline and follow-ups at 3 to 6 months. Embedded qualitative research with both participants and supporters will explore their perspectives on the intervention investigating a range of themes including acceptability and barriers and facilitators to delivery and participation. The feasibility of conducting a full RCT associated with participant recruitment and follow-up of both conditions, intervention delivery including the recruitment, training, retention of PRIDE trained facilitators, clinical outcomes, intervention and resource use costs and the acceptability of the intervention and study related procedures will be examined. Discussion This study will assess whether a definitive randomised trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of whether the PRIDE intervention offered in addition to usual care is feasible in comparison to usual care alone, and if so, will provide data to inform the design and conduct of a future trial. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN11288961, registered on 23 October 2019, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12345678 Protocol V2.1 dated 19 June 2019.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document