Effects of Actissist, a digital health intervention for early psychosis: A randomized clinical trial.

Schizophrenia affects 24 million people worldwide. Digital health interventions drawing on psychological principles have been developed, but their effectiveness remains unclear. This parallel, assessor-blinded, randomized clinical trial aimed to investigate whether a cognitive behaviour therapy-informed digital health intervention (Actissist app) confers added benefit on psychotic symptoms over and above remote symptom monitoring (ClinTouch app). Participants recruited from UK community health services were randomized 1:1 to receive either Actissist plus treatment as usual (TAU) or ClinTouch plus TAU. Eligible participants were adults with schizophrenia-spectrum psychosis within five years of first episode onset meeting a criterion level of positive symptoms severity. The primary outcome was Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) symptoms total score at 12 weeks post-randomization. Intention-to-treat analysis included 172 participants, with 149 participants (86.6 %) providing primary outcome data. Actissist plus TAU was not associated with greater reduction than an active control remote symptom monitoring app (ClinTouch) in PANSS total score at post-randomization. There were no significant effects between groups across secondary measures. There were no serious adverse reactions. Both groups improved on the primary psychotic symptoms measure at primary end-point and on secondary measures over time. The Actissist app is safe but not superior to digital symptom monitoring.

Fluid Optimisation in Emergency Laparotomy (FLO-ELA) Trial: study protocol for a multi-centre randomised trial of cardiac output-guided fluid therapy compared to usual care in patients undergoing major emergency gastrointestinal surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing major emergency gastrointestinal surgery are a major burden on healthcare systems. Optimal management of perioperative intravenous fluids may reduce mortality rates and improve outcomes from surgery. Previous small trials of cardiac-output guided haemodynamic therapy algorithms in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery have suggested this intervention results in reduced complications and a modest reduction in mortality. However, this existing evidence is based mainly on elective (planned) surgery, with little evaluation in the emergency setting. There are fundamental clinical and pathophysiological differences between the planned and emergency surgical setting which may influence the effects of this intervention. A large definitive trial in emergency surgery is needed to confirm or refute the potential benefits observed in elective surgery and to inform widespread clinical practice. METHODS: The FLO-ELA trial is a multi-centre, parallel-group, open, randomised controlled trial. 3138 patients aged 50 and over undergoing major emergency gastrointestinal surgery will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio using minimisation to minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring to guide protocolised administration of intra-venous fluid, or usual care without cardiac output monitoring. The trial intervention will be carried out during surgery and for up to 6 h postoperatively. The trial is funded through an efficient design call by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme and uses existing routinely collected datasets for the majority of data collection. The primary outcome is the number of days alive and out of hospital within 90 days of randomisation. Participants and those delivering the intervention will not be blinded to treatment allocation. Participant recruitment started in September 2017 with a 1-year internal pilot phase and is ongoing at the time of publication. DISCUSSION: This will be the largest contemporary randomised trial examining the effectiveness of perioperative cardiac output-guided haemodynamic therapy in patients undergoing major emergency gastrointestinal surgery. The multi-centre design and broad inclusion criteria support the external validity of the trial. Although the clinical teams delivering the trial interventions will not be blinded, significant trial outcome measures are objective and not subject to detection bias. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 14729158. Registered on 02 May 2017.

How do autistic people fare in adult life and can we predict it from childhood?

This study describes social, mental health, and quality of life outcomes in early adulthood, and examines childhood predictors in the Special Needs and Autism Project (SNAP), a longitudinal population-based cohort. Young autistic adults face variable but often substantial challenges across many areas of life. Prediction of outcomes is important to set expectations and could lead to the development of targeted early intervention. Autistic children were enrolled at age 12 and parents reported outcomes 11 years later when their children were age 23 (n = 121). Thirty six percent of autistic adults were in competitive employment or education and 54% had frequent contact with friends. Only 5% of autistic adults were living independently, and 37% required overnight care. Moderate or severe anxiety and depression symptoms were found for 11% and 12% of young adults, respectively. Subjective quality of life was similar to UK averages except for social relationships. Using childhood IQ, autism traits and adaptive functioning meaningful predictions can be made of living situation, employment and education and physical health. Prediction was poor for friendships, mental health outcomes and other aspects of quality of life. Our results suggest that although young autistic adults face challenges across normative, social outcomes, they may be faring better in regard to mental health or quality of life. Childhood IQ, autism traits and adaptive functioning are most useful for predicting outcomes. After accounting for these factors, childhood measurements of behavioral and emotional problems and language offered little improvement in prediction of adult outcomes.

Therapist-supported online cognitive therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in young people: protocol for an early-stage, parallel-group, randomised controlled study (OPTYC trial).

INTRODUCTION: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a disabling psychiatric condition that affects a significant minority of young people exposed to traumatic events. Effective face-to-face psychological treatments for PTSD exist. However, most young people with PTSD do not receive evidence-based treatment. Remotely delivered digital interventions have potential to significantly improve treatment accessibility. Digital interventions have been successfully employed for young people with depression and anxiety, and for adults with PTSD. However, digital interventions to treat PTSD in young people have not been evaluated. The Online PTSD Treatment for Young People & Carers (OPTYC) trial will evaluate the feasibility, acceptability and initial indications of clinical efficacy of a novel internet-delivered Cognitive Therapy for treatment of PTSD in young people (iCT-PTSD-YP). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol describes a two-arm, parallel-groups, single-blind (outcome assessor), early-stage randomised controlled trial, comparing iCT-PTSD-YP with a waiting list (WL) comparator. N=34 adolescents (12-17 years old), whose primary problem is PTSD after exposure to a single traumatic event, will be recruited from 14 NHS Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services in London and southeast England, from secondary schools and primary care in the same region, or via self-referral from anywhere in the UK using the study website. Individual patient-level randomisation will allocate participants in a 1:1 ratio, randomised using minimisation according to sex and baseline symptom severity. The primary study outcomes are data on feasibility and acceptability, including recruitment, adherence, retention and adverse events (AEs). The primary clinical outcome is PTSD diagnosis 16 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary clinical outcomes include continuous measures of PTSD, anxiety and depression symptoms. Regression analyses will provide preliminary estimates of the effect of iCT-PTSD-YP on PTSD diagnosis, symptoms of PTSD, anxiety and depression relative to WL. Process-outcome evaluation will consider which mechanisms mediate recovery. Qualitative interviews with young people, families and therapists will evaluate acceptability. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by a UK Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/1354). For participants aged under 16, informed consent will be provided by carers and the young person will be asked for their assent; participants aged 16 years or older can provide informed consent without their parent or caregiver's involvement. Findings will be disseminated broadly to participants, healthcare professionals, the public and other relevant groups. Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16876240.

A comparison of methods for analyzing a binary composite endpoint with partially observed components in randomized controlled trials.

Composite endpoints are commonly used to define primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. A participant may be classified as meeting the endpoint if they experience an event in one or several components (eg, a favorable outcome based on a composite of being alive and attaining negative culture results in trials assessing tuberculosis treatments). Partially observed components that are not missing simultaneously complicate the analysis of the composite endpoint. An intuitive strategy frequently used in practice for handling missing values in the components is to derive the values of the composite endpoint from observed components when possible, and exclude from analysis participants whose composite endpoint cannot be derived. Alternatively, complete record analysis (CRA) (excluding participants with any missing components) or multiple imputation (MI) can be used. We compare a set of methods for analyzing a composite endpoint with partially observed components mathematically and by simulation, and apply these methods in a reanalysis of a published trial (TOPPS). We show that the derived composite endpoint can be missing not at random even when the components are missing completely at random. Consequently, the treatment effect estimated from the derived endpoint is biased while CRA results without the derived endpoint are valid. Missing at random mechanisms require MI of the components. We conclude that, although superficially attractive, deriving the composite endpoint from observed components should generally be avoided. Despite the potential risk of imputation model mis-specification, MI of missing components is the preferred approach in this study setting.

Predicting Uncertain Multi-Dimensional Adulthood Outcomes From Childhood and Adolescent Data in People Referred to Autism Services.

INTRODUCTION: Autism spectrum disorder is a highly heterogeneous diagnosis. When a child is referred to autism services or receives a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder it is not known what their potential adult outcomes could be. We consider the challenge of making predictions of an individual child's long-term multi-facetted adult outcome, focussing on which aspects are predictable and which are not. METHODS: We used data from 123 adults participating in the Autism Early Diagnosis Cohort. Participants were recruited from age 2 and followed up repeatedly through childhood and adolescence to adulthood. We predicted 14 adult outcome measures including cognitive, behavioral and well-being measures. Continuous outcomes were modeled using lasso regression and ordinal outcomes were modeled using proportional odds regression. Optimism corrected predictive performance was calculated using cross-validation or bootstrap. We also illustrated the prediction of an overall composite formed by weighting outcome measures by priorities elicited from parents. RESULTS: We found good predictive performance from age 9 for verbal and non-verbal IQ, and daily living skills. Predictions for symptom severity, hyperactivity and irritability improved with inclusion of behavioral data collected in adolescence but remained modest. For other outcomes covering well-being, depression, and positive and negative affect we found no ability to predict adult outcomes at any age. Predictions of composites based on parental priorities differed in magnitude and precision depending on which parts of the adult outcome were given more weight. CONCLUSION: Verbal and non-verbal IQ, and daily living skills can be predicted well from assessments made in childhood. For other adult outcomes, it is challenging to make meaningful predictions from assessments made in childhood and adolescence using the measures employed in this study. Future work should replicate and validate the present findings in different samples, investigate whether the availability of different measures in childhood and adolescence can improve predictions, and consider systematic differences in priorities.

Process evaluation within pragmatic randomised controlled trials: what is it, why is it done, and can we find it?-a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Process evaluations are increasingly conducted within pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of health services interventions and provide vital information to enhance understanding of RCT findings. However, issues pertaining to process evaluation in this specific context have been little discussed. We aimed to describe the frequency, characteristics, labelling, value, practical conduct issues, and accessibility of published process evaluations within pragmatic RCTs in health services research. METHODS: We used a 2-phase systematic search process to (1) identify an index sample of journal articles reporting primary outcome results of pragmatic RCTs published in 2015 and then (2) identify all associated publications. We used an operational definition of process evaluation based on the Medical Research Council's process evaluation framework to identify both process evaluations reported separately and process data reported in the trial results papers. We extracted and analysed quantitative and qualitative data to answer review objectives. RESULTS: From an index sample of 31 pragmatic RCTs, we identified 17 separate process evaluation studies. These had varied characteristics and only three were labelled 'process evaluation'. Each of the 31 trial results papers also reported process data, with a median of five different process evaluation components per trial. Reported barriers and facilitators related to real-world collection of process data, recruitment of participants to process evaluations, and health services research regulations. We synthesised a wide range of reported benefits of process evaluations to interventions, trials, and wider knowledge. Visibility was often poor, with 13/17 process evaluations not mentioned in the trial results paper and 12/16 process evaluation journal articles not appearing in the trial registry. CONCLUSIONS: In our sample of reviewed pragmatic RCTs, the meaning of the label 'process evaluation' appears uncertain, and the scope and significance of the term warrant further research and clarification. Although there were many ways in which the process evaluations added value, they often had poor visibility. Our findings suggest approaches that could enhance the planning and utility of process evaluations in the context of pragmatic RCTs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable for PROSPERO registration.

How to design a pre-specified statistical analysis approach to limit p-hacking in clinical trials: the Pre-SPEC framework.

Results from clinical trials can be susceptible to bias if investigators choose their analysis approach after seeing trial data, as this can allow them to perform multiple analyses and then choose the method that provides the most favourable result (commonly referred to as 'p-hacking'). Pre-specification of the planned analysis approach is essential to help reduce such bias, as it ensures analytical methods are chosen in advance of seeing the trial data. For this reason, guidelines such as SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and ICH-E9 (International Conference for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use) require the statistical methods for a trial's primary outcome be pre-specified in the trial protocol. However, pre-specification is only effective if done in a way that does not allow p-hacking. For example, investigators may pre-specify a certain statistical method such as multiple imputation, but give little detail on how it will be implemented. Because there are many different ways to perform multiple imputation, this approach to pre-specification is ineffective, as it still allows investigators to analyse the data in different ways before deciding on a final approach. In this article, we describe a five-point framework (the Pre-SPEC framework) for designing a pre-specified analysis approach that does not allow p-hacking. This framework was designed based on the principles in the SPIRIT and ICH-E9 guidelines and is intended to be used in conjunction with these guidelines to help investigators design the statistical analysis strategy for the trial's primary outcome in the trial protocol.

Public availability and adherence to prespecified statistical analysis approaches was low in published randomized trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Prespecification of statistical methods in clinical trial protocols and statistical analysis plans can help to deter bias from p-hacking but is only effective if the prespecified approach is made available. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: For 100 randomized trials published in 2018 and indexed in PubMed, we evaluated how often a prespecified statistical analysis approach for the trial's primary outcome was publicly available. For each trial with an available prespecified analysis, we compared this with the trial publication to identify whether there were unexplained discrepancies. RESULTS: Only 12 of 100 trials (12%) had a publicly available prespecified analysis approach for their primary outcome; this document was dated before recruitment began for only two trials. Of the 12 trials with an available prespecified analysis approach, 11 (92%) had one or more unexplained discrepancies. Only 4 of 100 trials (4%) stated that the statistician was blinded until the SAP was signed off, and only 10 of 100 (10%) stated the statistician was blinded until the database was locked. CONCLUSION: For most published trials, there is insufficient information available to determine whether the results may be subject to p-hacking. Where information was available, there were often unexplained discrepancies between the prespecified and final analysis methods.

Evidence of unexplained discrepancies between planned and conducted statistical analyses: a review of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Choosing or altering the planned statistical analysis approach after examination of trial data (often referred to as 'p-hacking') can bias the results of randomised trials. However, the extent of this issue in practice is currently unclear. We conducted a review of published randomised trials to evaluate how often a pre-specified analysis approach is publicly available, and how often the planned analysis is changed. METHODS: A review of randomised trials published between January and April 2018 in six leading general medical journals. For each trial, we established whether a pre-specified analysis approach was publicly available in a protocol or statistical analysis plan and compared this to the trial publication. RESULTS: Overall, 89 of 101 eligible trials (88%) had a publicly available pre-specified analysis approach. Only 22/89 trials (25%) had no unexplained discrepancies between the pre-specified and conducted analysis. Fifty-four trials (61%) had one or more unexplained discrepancies, and in 13 trials (15%), it was impossible to ascertain whether any unexplained discrepancies occurred due to incomplete reporting of the statistical methods. Unexplained discrepancies were most common for the analysis model (n = 31, 35%) and analysis population (n = 28, 31%), followed by the use of covariates (n = 23, 26%) and the approach for handling missing data (n = 16, 18%). Many protocols or statistical analysis plans were dated after the trial had begun, so earlier discrepancies may have been missed. CONCLUSIONS: Unexplained discrepancies in the statistical methods of randomised trials are common. Increased transparency is required for proper evaluation of results.

How pragmatic are the randomised trials used in recommendations for control of glycosylated haemoglobin levels in type 2 diabetic patients in general practice: an application of the PRECIS II tool.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations for good clinical practice have been reported to be difficult to apply in real life by primary care clinicians. This could be because the clinical trials at the origin of the guidelines are based on explanatory trials, conducted under ideal conditions not reflecting the reality of primary care, rather than pragmatic trials conducted under real-life conditions. The objective of this study was to evaluate how pragmatic are the clinical trials used to build the French High Authority of Health's recommendations on the management of type II diabetes. METHODS: Trials from the 2013 Cochrane meta-analysis that led to the 2013 French High Authority of Health's recommendations on the management of type II diabetes were selected. Each trial was analysed by applying the PRECIS-2 tool to evaluate whether the trial was pragmatic or explanatory, according to the nine domains of PRECIS-2. Each domain was scored between 1 (very explanatory) and 5 (very pragmatic) by two blinded researchers, and consensus was reached with a third researcher in case of discrepancy. Median scores were calculated for each of the nine domains. RESULTS: Twenty-three articles were analysed. Eight out of nine domains - namely eligibility, recruitment, setting, organisation, flexibility of delivery, flexibility of adherence, follow-up, and primary outcome - had a median score of less than 3, indicating a more explanatory design. Only the primary analysis domain had a score indicating a more pragmatic approach (median score of 4). In more than 25% of the articles, data to score the domains of recruitment, flexibility of delivery, flexibility of adherence, and primary analysis were missing. CONCLUSIONS: Trials used to build French recommendations for good clinical practice for the management of type 2 diabetes in primary care were more explanatory than pragmatic. Policy-makers should encourage the funding of pragmatic trials to evaluate the different strategies proposed for managing the patient's treatment according to HbA1C levels and give clinicians feasible recommendations.

MEMPHIS: a smartphone app using psychological approaches for women with chronic pelvic pain presenting to gynaecology clinics: a randomised feasibility trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of a randomised trial of a modified, pre-existing, mindfulness meditation smartphone app for women with chronic pelvic pain. DESIGN: Three arm randomised feasibility trial. SETTING: Women were recruited at two gynaecology clinics in the UK. Interventions were delivered via smartphone or computer at a location of participants choosing. PARTICIPANTS: Women were eligible for the study if they were over 18, had been experiencing organic or non-organic chronic pelvic pain for 6 months or more, and had access to a computer or smartphone. 90 women were randomised. INTERVENTIONS: Daily mindfulness meditation delivered by smartphone app, an active control app which delivered muscle relaxation techniques, and usual care without app. Interventions were delivered over 60 days. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes included length of recruitment, follow-up rates, adherence to the app interventions, and clinical outcomes measured at baseline, two, three and 6 months. RESULTS: The target sample size was recruited in 145 days. Adherence to the app interventions was extremely low (mean app use 1.8 days mindfulness meditation group, 7.0 days active control). Fifty-seven (63%) women completed 6-month follow-up, and 75 (83%) women completed at least one postrandomisation follow-up. The 95% CIs for clinical outcomes were consistent with no benefit from the mindfulness meditation app; for example, mean differences in pain acceptance scores at 60 days (higher scores are better) were -2.3 (mindfulness meditation vs usual care, 95% CI: -6.6 to 2.0) and -4.0 (mindfulness meditation vs active control, 95% CI: -8.1 to 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Despite high recruitment and adequate follow-up rates, demonstrating feasibility, the extremely low adherence suggests a definitive randomised trial of the mindfulness meditation app used in this study is not warranted. Future research should focus on improving patient engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT02721108; ISRCTN10925965; Results.

Improving the relevance of randomised trials to primary care: a qualitative study investigating views towards pragmatic trials and the PRECIS-2 tool.

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic trials have been suggested as a way to improve the relevance of clinical trial results to practice. PRECIS-2 (Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2) is a trial design tool which considers how pragmatic a trial is across a number of domains. It is not known whether a pragmatic approach to all PRECIS-2 domains leads to results being more relevant to primary care. The aim of this study was to investigate the views of people with influence on primary care practice towards the design of randomised trials, pragmatic approaches to trial design, and the PRECIS-2 domains. METHODS: We carried out semi-structured interviews with people who influence practice in primary care in the UK. A thematic analysis was undertaken using the framework approach. RESULTS: We conducted individual or small group interviews involving an elite sample of 17 individuals. We found that an exclusively pragmatic approach to randomised trials may not always make the results of trials more applicable to primary care. For example, it may be better to have less flexibility in the way interventions are delivered in randomised trials than in practice. In addition, an appropriate balance needs to be struck when thinking about levels of resourcing and the intensity of steps needed to improve adherence in a trial. Across other aspects of a trial's design, for example the population and trial setting, a pragmatic approach was viewed as more appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: To maximize the relevance of research directed at primary care, trials should be conducted with the same populations and settings that are found in primary care. Across other aspects of trials it is not always necessary to match the conditions found in practice.

Physiological, hyaluronan-selected intracytoplasmic sperm injection for infertility treatment (HABSelect): a parallel, two-group, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Sperm selection strategies aimed at improving success rates of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) include binding to hyaluronic acid (herein termed hyaluronan). Hyaluronan-selected sperm have reduced levels of DNA damage and aneuploidy. Use of hyaluronan-based sperm selection for ICSI (so-called physiological ICSI [PICSI]) is reported to reduce the proportion of pregnancies that end in miscarriage. However, the effect of PICSI on livebirth rates is uncertain. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of PICSI versus standard ICSI for improving livebirth rates among couples undergoing fertility treatment. METHODS: This parallel, two-group, randomised trial included couples undergoing an ICSI procedure with fresh embryo transfer at 16 assisted conception units in the UK. Eligible women (aged 18-43 years) had a body-mass index of 19-35 kg/m2 and a follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) concentration of 3·0-20·0 mIU/mL or, if no FSH measurement was available, an anti-müllerian hormone concentration of at least 1·5 pmol/L. Eligible men (aged 18-55 years) had not had a vasovasostomy or been treated for cancer in the 24 months before recruitment and were able, after at least 3 days of sexual abstinence, to produce freshly ejaculated sperm for the treatment cycle. Couples were randomly assigned (1:1) with an online system to receive either PICSI or a standard ICSI procedure. The primary outcome was full-term (≥37 weeks' gestational age) livebirth, which was assessed in all eligible couples who completed follow-up. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN99214271. FINDINGS: Between Feb 1, 2014, and Aug 31, 2016, 2772 couples were randomly assigned to receive PICSI (n=1387) or ICSI (n=1385), of whom 2752 (1381 in the PICSI group and 1371 in the ICSI group) were included in the primary analysis. The term livebirth rate did not differ significantly between PICSI (27·4% [379/1381]) and ICSI (25·2% [346/1371]) groups (odds ratio 1·12, 95% CI 0·95-1·34; p=0·18). There were 56 serious adverse events in total, including 31 in the PICSI group and 25 in the ICSI group; most were congenital abnormalities and none were attributed to treatment. INTERPRETATION: Compared with ICSI, PICSI does not significantly improve term livebirth rates. The wider use of PICSI, therefore, is not recommended at present. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme.

Optimisation of Perioperative Cardiovascular Management to Improve Surgical Outcome II (OPTIMISE II) trial: study protocol for a multicentre international trial of cardiac output-guided fluid therapy with low-dose inotrope infusion compared with usual care in patients undergoing major elective gastrointestinal surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative morbidity and mortality in older patients with comorbidities undergoing gastrointestinal surgery are a major burden on healthcare systems. Infections after surgery are common in such patients, prolonging hospitalisation and reducing postoperative short-term and long-term survival. Optimal management of perioperative intravenous fluids and inotropic drugs may reduce infection rates and improve outcomes from surgery. Previous small trials of cardiac-output-guided haemodynamic therapy algorithms suggested a modest reduction in postoperative morbidity. A large definitive trial is needed to confirm or refute this and inform widespread clinical practice. METHODS: The Optimisation of Perioperative Cardiovascular Management to Improve Surgical Outcome II (OPTIMISE II) trial is a multicentre, international, parallel group, open, randomised controlled trial. 2502 high-risk patients undergoing major elective gastrointestinal surgery will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio using minimisation to minimally invasive cardiac output monitoring to guide protocolised administration of intravenous fluid combined with low-dose inotrope infusion, or usual care. The trial intervention will be carried out during and for 4 hours after surgery. The primary outcome is postoperative infection of Clavien-Dindo grade II or higher within 30 days of randomisation. Participants and those delivering the intervention will not be blinded to treatment allocation; however, outcome assessors will be blinded when feasible. Participant recruitment started in January 2017 and is scheduled to last 3 years, within 50 hospitals worldwide. ETHICS/DISSEMINATION: The OPTIMISE II trial has been approved by the UK National Research Ethics Service and has been approved by responsible ethics committees in all participating countries. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a widely accessible peer-reviewed scientific journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN39653756.

Co-producing Randomized Controlled Trials: How Do We Work Together?

In the light of the declaration "Nothing about us without us" (Charlton, 2000), interest in co-production, and coproduced research is expanding. Good work has been done establishing principles for co-production (Hickey et al., 2018) and for good quality involvement (Involve, 2013; 4Pi, 2015) and describing how this works in practice in mental health research (Gillard et al., 2012a,b, 2013). In the published literature, co-production has worked well in qualitative research projects in which there is often methodological flexibility. However, to change treatment guidelines in the UK, e.g., the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, and influence service commissioning, high quality quantitative research is also needed. This type of research is characterized by formal methodological rules, which pose challenges for the scope of co-production. In this paper we describe the significant challenges and solutions we adopted to design and deliver a coproduced randomized controlled trial of mental health peer support. Given the methodological rigidity of a randomized controlled trial, establishing clearly which methodological and practical decisions and processes can be coproduced, by whom, and how, has been vital to our ongoing co-production as the project has progressed and the team has expanded. Creating and maintaining space for the supported dialogue, reflection, and culture that co-production requires has been vital. This paper aims to make our learning accessible to a wide audience of people developing co-production of knowledge in this field.

Ethical implications of excessive cluster sizes in cluster randomised trials.

The cluster randomised trial (CRT) is commonly used in healthcare research. It is the gold-standard study design for evaluating healthcare policy interventions. A key characteristic of this design is that as more participants are included, in a fixed number of clusters, the increase in achievable power will level off. CRTs with cluster sizes that exceed the point of levelling-off will have excessive numbers of participants, even if they do not achieve nominal levels of power. Excessively large cluster sizes may have ethical implications due to exposing trial participants unnecessarily to the burdens of both participating in the trial and the potential risks of harm associated with the intervention. We explore these issues through the use of two case studies. Where data are routinely collected, available at minimum cost and the intervention poses low risk, the ethical implications of excessively large cluster sizes are likely to be low (case study 1). However, to maximise the social benefit of the study, identification of excessive cluster sizes can allow for prespecified and fully powered secondary analyses. In the second case study, while there is no burden through trial participation (because the outcome data are routinely collected and non-identifiable), the intervention might be considered to pose some indirect risk to patients and risks to the healthcare workers. In this case study it is therefore important that the inclusion of excessively large cluster sizes is justifiable on other grounds (perhaps to show sustainability). In any randomised controlled trial, including evaluations of health policy interventions, it is important to minimise the burdens and risks to participants. Funders, researchers and research ethics committees should be aware of the ethical issues of excessively large cluster sizes in cluster trials.

Smartphone App Using Mindfulness Meditation for Women With Chronic Pelvic Pain (MEMPHIS): Protocol for a Randomized Feasibility Trial.

BACKGROUND: Female chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is defined as intermittent or constant pelvic or lower abdominal pain occurring in a woman for at least 6 months. Up to a quarter of women are estimated to be affected by CPP worldwide and it is responsible for one fifth of specialist gynecological referrals in the United Kingdom. Psychological interventions are commonly utilized. As waiting times and funding capacity impede access to face-to-face consultations, supported self-management (SSM) has emerged as a viable alternative. Mindfulness meditation is a potentially valuable SSM tool, and in the era of mobile technology, this can be delivered to the individual user via a smartphone app. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of conducting a trial of a mindfulness meditation intervention delivered by a mobile phone app for patients with CPP. The main feasibility objectives were to assess patient recruitment and app adherence, to obtain information to be used in the sample size estimate of a future trial, and to receive feedback on usability of the app. METHODS: Mindfulness Meditation for Women With Chronic Pelvic Pain (MEMPHIS) is a three-arm feasibility trial, that took place in two hospitals in the United Kingdom. Eligible participants were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three treatment arms: (1) the intervention arm, consisting of a guided, spoken mindfulness meditation app; (2) an active control arm, consisting of a progressive muscle relaxation app; and (3) usual care (no app). Participants were followed-up for 6 months. Key feasibility outcomes included the time taken to recruit all patients for the study, adherence, and estimates to be used in the sample size calculation for a subsequent full-scale trial. Upon completion of the feasibility trial we will conduct focus groups to explore app usability and reasons for noncompliance. RESULTS: Recruitment for MEMPHIS took place between May 2016 and September 2016. The study was closed March 2017 and the report was submitted to the NIHR on October 26, 2017. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility trial will inform the design of a large multicentered trial to assess the clinical effectiveness of mindfulness meditation delivered via a smartphone app for the treatment of CPP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02721108; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02721108 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6wLMAkuaU); BioMed Central: ISRCTN10925965; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10925965 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6wLMVLuys).

Understanding the applicability of results from primary care trials: lessons learned from applying PRECIS-2.

OBJECTIVE: To compare two approaches for trial teams to apply PRECIS-2 to pragmatic trials: independent scoring and scoring following a group discussion. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We recruited multidisciplinary teams who were conducting or had conducted trials in primary care in collaboration with the Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Queen Mary University of London. Each team carried out two rounds of scoring on the nine PRECIS-2 domains: first independently using an online version of PRECIS-2 and second following a discussion. RESULTS: Seven teams took part in the study. Before the discussion, within-team agreement in scores was generally poor and not all raters were able to score all domains; agreement improved after the discussion. The PRECIS-2 wheels suggested that the trials were pragmatic, although some domains were more pragmatic than others. CONCLUSION: PRECIS-2 can facilitate information exchange within trial teams. To apply PRECIS-2 successfully, we recommend a discussion between those with detailed understanding of what usual care is for the intervention, the trial's design including operational and technical aspects, and the PRECIS-2 domains. For some cluster-randomized trials, greater insight may be gained by plotting two PRECIS-2 wheels, one at the individual participant level and another at the cluster level.

Increased risk of type I errors in cluster randomised trials with small or medium numbers of clusters: a review, reanalysis, and simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Cluster randomised trials (CRTs) are commonly analysed using mixed-effects models or generalised estimating equations (GEEs). However, these analyses do not always perform well with the small number of clusters typical of most CRTs. They can lead to increased risk of a type I error (finding a statistically significant treatment effect when it does not exist) if appropriate corrections are not used. METHODS: We conducted a small simulation study to evaluate the impact of using small-sample corrections for mixed-effects models or GEEs in CRTs with a small number of clusters. We then reanalysed data from TRIGGER, a CRT with six clusters, to determine the effect of using an inappropriate analysis method in practice. Finally, we reviewed 100 CRTs previously identified by a search on PubMed in order to assess whether trials were using appropriate methods of analysis. Trials were classified as at risk of an increased type I error rate if they did not report using an analysis method which accounted for clustering, or if they had fewer than 40 clusters and performed an individual-level analysis without reporting the use of an appropriate small-sample correction. RESULTS: Our simulation study found that using mixed-effects models or GEEs without an appropriate correction led to inflated type I error rates, even for as many as 70 clusters. Conversely, using small-sample corrections provided correct type I error rates across all scenarios. Reanalysis of the TRIGGER trial found that inappropriate methods of analysis gave much smaller P values (P ≤ 0.01) than appropriate methods (P = 0.04-0.15). In our review, of the 99 trials that reported the number of clusters, 64 (65 %) were at risk of an increased type I error rate; 14 trials did not report using an analysis method which accounted for clustering, and 50 trials with fewer than 40 clusters performed an individual-level analysis without reporting the use of an appropriate correction. CONCLUSIONS: CRTs with a small or medium number of clusters are at risk of an inflated type I error rate unless appropriate analysis methods are used. Investigators should consider using small-sample corrections with mixed-effects models or GEEs to ensure valid results.