Laparoscopically assisted versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer-the Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open (ROMIO) study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT).

INTRODUCTION: Surgery (oesophagectomy), with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy, is the main curative treatment for patients with oesophageal cancer. Several surgical approaches can be used to remove an oesophageal tumour. The Ivor Lewis (two-phase procedure) is usually used in the UK. This can be performed as an open oesophagectomy (OO), a laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO) or a totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (TMIO). All three are performed in the National Health Service, with LAO and OO the most common. However, there is limited evidence about which surgical approach is best for patients in terms of survival and postoperative health-related quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will undertake a UK multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare LAO with OO in adult patients with oesophageal cancer. The primary outcome is patient-reported physical function at 3 and 6 weeks postoperatively and 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include: postoperative complications, survival, disease recurrence, other measures of quality of life, spirometry, success of patient blinding and quality assurance measures. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed comparing LAO with OO. We will embed a randomised substudy to evaluate the safety and evolution of the TMIO procedure and a qualitative recruitment intervention to optimise patient recruitment. We will analyse the primary outcome using a multi-level regression model. Patients will be monitored for up to 3 years after their surgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received ethical approval from the South-West Franchay Research Ethics Committee. We will submit the results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10386621.

The revised Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue measures and the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease scale: validation in six countries.

Objective: To evaluate the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multidimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ), the revised Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Numerical Rating Scales (BRAF-NRS V2) and the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) scale in six countries. Methods: We surveyed RA patients in France, Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK, including the HAQ, 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and potential revisions of the BRAF-NRS coping and Spanish RAID coping items. Factor structure and internal consistency were examined by factor analysis and Cronbach's α and construct validity by Spearman's correlation. Results: A total of 1276 patients participated (76% female, 25% with a disease duration <5 years, median HAQ 1.0). The original BRAF-MDQ four-factor structure and RAID single-factor structure were confirmed in every country with ⩾66% of variation in items explained by each factor and all item factor loadings of 0.71-0.98. Internal consistency for the BRAF-MDQ total and subscales was a Cronbach's α of 0.75-0.96 and for RAID, 0.93-0.96. Fatigue construct validity was shown for the BRAF-MDQ and BRAF-NRS severity and effect scales, correlated internally with SF-36 vitality and with RAID fatigue (r = 0.63-0.93). Broader construct validity for the BRAFs and RAID was shown by correlation with each other, HAQ and SF-36 domains (r = 0.46-0.82), with similar patterns in individual countries. The revised BRAF-NRS V2 Coping item had stronger validity than the original in all analyses. The revised Spanish RAID coping item performed as well as the original. Conclusion: Across six European countries, the BRAF-MDQ identifies the same four aspects of fatigue, and along with the RAID, shows strong factor structure and internal consistency and moderate-good construct validity. The revised BRAF-NRS V2 shows improved construct validity and replaces the original.

Developing core outcomes sets: methods for identifying and including patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

BACKGROUND: Synthesis of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data is hindered by the range of available PRO measures (PROMs) composed of multiple scales and single items with differing terminology and content. The use of core outcome sets, an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported in all trials of a specific condition, may improve this issue but methods to select core PRO domains from the many available PROMs are lacking. This study examines existing PROMs and describes methods to identify health domains to inform the development of a core outcome set, illustrated with an example. METHODS: Systematic literature searches identified validated PROMs from studies evaluating radical treatment for oesophageal cancer. PROM scale/single item names were recorded verbatim and the frequency of similar names/scales documented. PROM contents (scale components/single items) were examined for conceptual meaning by an expert clinician and methodologist and categorised into health domains. A patient advocate independently checked this categorisation. RESULTS: Searches identified 21 generic and disease-specific PROMs containing 116 scales and 32 single items with 94 different verbatim names. Identical names for scales were repeatedly used (for example, 'physical function' in six different measures) and others were similar (overlapping face validity) although component items were not always comparable. Based on methodological, clinical and patient expertise, 606 individual items were categorised into 32 health domains. CONCLUSION: This study outlines a methodology for identifying candidate PRO domains from existing PROMs to inform a core outcome set to use in clinical trials.