Trial Forge Guidance 4: a guideline for reporting the results of randomised Studies Within A Trial (SWATs).

BACKGROUND: Evidence to support decisions on trial processes is minimal. One way to generate this evidence is to use a Study Within A Trial (SWAT) to test trial processes or explore methodological uncertainties. SWAT evidence relies on replication to ensure sufficient power and broad applicability of findings. Prompt reporting is therefore essential; however, SWAT publications are often the first to be abandoned in the face of other time pressures. Reporting guidance for embedded methodology trials does exist but is not widely used. We sought therefore to build on these guidelines to develop a straightforward, concise reporting standard, which remains adherent to the CONSORT guideline. METHODS: An iterative process was used to develop the guideline. This included initial meetings with key stakeholders, development of an initial guideline, pilot testing of draft guidelines, further iteration and pilot testing, and finalisation of the guideline. RESULTS: We developed a reporting guideline applicable to randomised SWATs, including replications of previous evaluations. The guideline follows the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and provides example text to ensure ease and clarity of reporting across all domains. CONCLUSIONS: The SWAT reporting guideline will aid authors, reviewers, and journal editors to produce and review clear, structured reports of randomised SWATs, whilst also adhering to the CONSORT guideline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EQUATOR Network - Guidelines Under Development ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-clinical-trials/#SWAT ). Registered on 25 March 2021.

A randomised controlled trial of compression therapies for the treatment of venous leg ulcers (VenUS 6): study protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, three-arm randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Venous leg ulcer(s) are common, recurring, open wounds on the lower leg, resulting from diseased or damaged leg veins impairing blood flow. Wound healing is the primary treatment aim for venous leg ulceration, alongside the management of pain, wound exudate and infection. Full (high) compression therapy delivering 40 mmHg of pressure at the ankle is the recommended first-line treatment for venous leg ulcers. There are several different forms of compression therapy available including wraps, two-layer hosiery, and two-layer or four-layer bandages. There is good evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness of four-layer bandage and two-layer hosiery but more limited evidence for other treatments (two-layer bandage and compression wraps). Robust evidence is required to compare clinical and cost-effectiveness of these and to investigate which is the best compression treatment for reducing time to healing of venous leg ulcers whilst offering value for money. VenUS 6 will therefore investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of evidence-based compression, two-layer bandage and compression wraps for time to healing of venous leg ulcers. METHODS: VenUS 6 is a pragmatic, multi-centre, three-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Adult patients with a venous leg ulcer will be randomised to receive (1) compression wraps, (2) two-layer bandage or (3) evidence-based compression (two-layer hosiery or four-layer bandage). Participants will be followed up for between 4 and 12 months. The primary outcome will be time to healing (full epithelial cover in the absence of a scab) in days since randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include key clinical events (e.g. healing of the reference leg, ulcer recurrence, ulcer/skin deterioration, amputation, admission/discharge, surgery to close/remove incompetent superficial veins, infection or death), treatment changes, adherence and ease of use, ulcer related pain, health-related quality of life and resource use. DISCUSSION: VenUS 6 will provide robust evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the different forms of compression therapies for venous leg ulceration. VenUS 6 opened to recruitment in January 2021 and is currently recruiting across 30 participating centres. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN67321719 . Prospectively registered on 14 September 2020.

Systematic review: height-adjustable workstations to reduce sedentary behaviour in office-based workers.

BACKGROUND: Time spent sitting in the workplace is an important contributor to overall sedentary risk. Installation of height-adjustable workstations has been proposed as a feasible approach for reducing occupational sitting time in office workers. AIMS: To provide an accurate overview of the controlled trials that have evaluated the effects of height-adjustable workstation interventions on workplace sitting time in office-based workers. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted up until March 2014 in the following databases: Medline, PsychINFO, CENTRAL, EMBASE and PEDro. To identify unpublished studies and grey literature, the reference lists of relevant official or scientific web pages were also checked. Studies assessing the effectiveness of height-adjustable workstations using a randomized or non-randomized controlled design were included. RESULTS: The initial search yielded a total of 8497 citations. After a thorough selection process, five studies were included with 172 participants. A formal quality assessment indicated that risk of bias was high in all studies and heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes prevented meta-analysis. Nevertheless, all studies reported that height-adjustable workstation interventions reduced occupational sitting time in office workers. There was insufficient evidence to determine effects on other relevant health outcomes (e.g. body composition, musculoskeletal symptoms, mental health). CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to make firm conclusions regarding the effects of installing height-adjustable workstations on sedentary behaviour and associated health outcomes in office workers. Larger and longer term controlled studies are needed, which include more representative populations.