Community health promotion and medical provision and impact on neonates (CHAMPION2) and support to rural India's public education system and impact on numeracy and literacy scores (STRIPES2): an update to the study protocol (v 11) for a cluster randomised trial in Madhya Pradesh, India.

BACKGROUND: This update outlines amendments to the CHAMPION2/STRIPES2 cluster randomised trial protocol primarily made due to the COVID-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown in India in 2020. These amendments were in line with national guidelines for health research during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We did not change the original trial design, eligibility, and outcomes. Amendments were introduced to minimise the risk of COVID-19 transmission and ensure safety and wellbeing of trial staff, participants, and other villagers. CHAMPION2 intervention: participatory learning and action (PLA) and fixed day service (FDS) meeting were revised to incorporate social distancing and hygiene precautions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, PLA participation was limited to pregnant women and birthing partners. STRIPES2 intervention: before/after-school classes were halted for a period and then modified temporarily (reducing class sizes, and/or changing meeting places) with hygiene and safe distancing practices introduced. DATA COLLECTION: The research team gathered as much information as possible from participants by telephone. If the participant had no telephone or could not be contacted by telephone, data were collected in person. COVID-19 precautions: trial teams were trained on COVID-19 precautions and used personal protective equipment whilst in the villages for trial-related activities. After restarting the trial between June and September 2020 in a phased manner, some trial activities were suspended again in all the trial villages from April to June 2021 due to the second wave of COVID-19 cases and lockdown imposed in Satna, Madhya Pradesh. Trial timelines were also revised, with outcomes measured later than originally planned. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registry of India CTRI/2019/05/019296. Registered 23 May 2019. https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?EncHid=MzExOTg=&Enc=&userName=champion2 .

Effectiveness of kangaroo mother care before clinical stabilisation versus standard care among neonates at five hospitals in Uganda (OMWaNA): a parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is the leading cause of death in children younger than 5 years worldwide. WHO recommends kangaroo mother care (KMC); however, its effects on mortality in sub-Saharan Africa and its relative costs remain unclear. We aimed to compare the effectiveness, safety, costs, and cost-effectiveness of KMC initiated before clinical stabilisation versus standard care in neonates weighing up to 2000 g. METHODS: We conducted a parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial in five hospitals across Uganda. Singleton or twin neonates aged younger than 48 h weighing 700-2000 g without life-threatening clinical instability were eligible for inclusion. We randomly assigned (1:1) neonates to either KMC initiated before stabilisation (intervention group) or standard care (control group) via a computer-generated random allocation sequence with permuted blocks of varying sizes, stratified by birthweight and recruitment site. Parents, caregivers, and health-care workers were unmasked to treatment allocation; however, the independent statistician who conducted the analyses was masked. After randomisation, neonates in the intervention group were placed prone and skin-to-skin on the caregiver's chest, secured with a KMC wrap. Neonates in the control group were cared for in an incubator or radiant heater, as per hospital practice; KMC was not initiated until stability criteria were met. The primary outcome was all-cause neonatal mortality at 7 days, analysed by intention to treat. The economic evaluation assessed incremental costs and cost-effectiveness from a disaggregated societal perspective. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811432. FINDINGS: Between Oct 9, 2019, and July 31, 2022, 2221 neonates were randomly assigned: 1110 (50·0%) neonates to the intervention group and 1111 (50·0%) neonates to the control group. From randomisation to age 7 days, 81 (7·5%) of 1083 neonates in the intervention group and 83 (7·5%) of 1102 neonates in the control group died (adjusted relative risk [RR] 0·97 [95% CI 0·74-1·28]; p=0·85). From randomisation to 28 days, 119 (11·3%) of 1051 neonates in the intervention group and 134 (12·8%) of 1049 neonates in the control group died (RR 0·88 [0·71-1·09]; p=0·23). Even if policy makers place no value on averting neonatal deaths, the intervention would have 97% probability from the provider perspective and 84% probability from the societal perspective of being more cost-effective than standard care. INTERPRETATION: KMC initiated before stabilisation did not reduce early neonatal mortality; however, it was cost-effective from the societal and provider perspectives compared with standard care. Additional investment in neonatal care is needed for increased impact, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. FUNDING: Joint Global Health Trials scheme of the Department of Health and Social Care, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, UKRI Medical Research Council, and Wellcome Trust; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Correction: Impact of maintaining serum potassium concentration ≥ 3.6mEq/L versus ≥ 4.5mEq/L for 120 hours after isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery on incidence of new onset atrial fibrillation: Protocol for a randomized non-inferiority trial.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296525.].

Assessing efficacy in non-inferiority trials with non-adherence to interventions: Are intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses fit for purpose?

BACKGROUND: Non-inferiority trials comparing different active drugs are often subject to treatment non-adherence. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses have been advocated in such studies but are not guaranteed to be unbiased in the presence of differential non-adherence. METHODS: The REMoxTB trial evaluated two 4-month experimental regimens compared with a 6-month control regimen for newly diagnosed drug-susceptible TB. The primary endpoint was a composite unfavorable outcome of treatment failure or recurrence within 18 months post-randomization. We conducted a simulation study based on REMoxTB to assess the performance of statistical methods for handling non-adherence in non-inferiority trials, including: ITT and PP analyses, adjustment for observed adherence, multiple imputation (MI) of outcomes, inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting (IPTW), and a doubly-robust (DR) estimator. RESULTS: When non-adherence differed between trial arms, ITT, and PP analyses often resulted in non-trivial bias in the estimated treatment effect, which consequently under- or over-inflated the type I error rate. Adjustment for observed adherence led to similar issues, whereas the MI, IPTW and DR approaches were able to correct bias under most non-adherence scenarios; they could not always eliminate bias entirely in the presence of unobserved confounding. The IPTW and DR methods were generally unbiased and maintained desired type I error rates and statistical power. CONCLUSIONS: When non-adherence differs between trial arms, ITT and PP analyses can produce biased estimates of efficacy, potentially leading to the acceptance of inferior treatments or efficacious regimens being missed. IPTW and the DR estimator are relatively straightforward methods to supplement ITT and PP approaches.

Statistical analysis plan for a cluster randomised trial in Madhya Pradesh, India: community health promotion and medical provision and impact on neonates (CHAMPION2).

BACKGROUND: Neonatal mortality in India has fallen steadily and was estimated to be 24 per 1000 live births in the year 2017. However, neonatal mortality remains high in rural parts of the country. The Community Health Promotion and Medical Provision and Impact On Neonates (CHAMPION2) trial investigates the effect of a complex health intervention on neonatal mortality in the Satna District of Madhya Pradesh. METHODS/DESIGN: The CHAMPION2 trial forms one part of a cluster-randomised controlled trial with villages (clusters) randomised to receive either a health (CHAMPION2) or education (STRIPES2) intervention. Villages receiving the health intervention are controls for the education intervention and vice versa. The primary outcome is neonatal mortality. The effect of the active intervention on the primary outcome (compared to usual care) will be expressed as a risk ratio, estimated using a generalised estimating equation approach with robust standard errors that take account of clustering at village level. Secondary outcomes include maternal mortality, stillbirths, perinatal deaths, causes of death, health care and knowledge, hospital admissions of enrolled women during pregnancy or in the immediate post-natal care period or of their babies (during the neonatal period), maternal blood transfusions, and the cost effectiveness of the intervention. A total of 196 villages have been randomised and over 34,000 women have been recruited in CHAMPION2. DISCUSSION: This update to the published trial protocol gives a detailed plan for the statistical analysis of the CHAMPION2 trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry of India: CTRI/2019/05/019296. Registered on 23 May 2019. https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?EncHid=MzExOTg=&Enc=&userName=champion2.

Impact of maintaining serum potassium concentration ≥ 3.6mEq/L versus ≥ 4.5mEq/L for 120 hours after isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery on incidence of new onset atrial fibrillation: Protocol for a randomized non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Atrial Fibrillation After Cardiac Surgery (AFACS) occurs in about one in three patients following Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG). It is associated with increased short- and long-term morbidity, mortality and costs. To reduce AFACS incidence, efforts are often made to maintain serum potassium in the high-normal range (≥ 4.5mEq/L). However, there is no evidence that this strategy is efficacious. Furthermore, the approach is costly, often unpleasant for patients, and risks causing harm. We describe the protocol of a planned randomized non-inferiority trial to investigate the impact of intervening to maintain serum potassium ≥ 3.6 mEq/L vs ≥ 4.5 mEq/L on incidence of new-onset AFACS after isolated elective CABG. METHODS: Patients undergoing isolated CABG at sites in the UK and Germany will be recruited, randomized 1:1 and stratified by site to protocols maintaining serum potassium at either ≥ 3.6 mEq/L or ≥ 4.5 mEq/L. Participants will not be blind to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint is AFACS, defined as an episode of atrial fibrillation, flutter or tachycardia lasting ≥ 30 seconds until hour 120 after surgery, which is both clinically detected and electrocardiographically confirmed. Assuming a 35% incidence of AFACS in the 'tight control group', and allowing for a 10% loss to follow-up, 1684 participants are required to provide 90% certainty that the upper limit of a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) will exclude a > 10% difference in favour of tight potassium control. Secondary endpoints include mortality, use of hospital resources and incidence of dysrhythmias not meeting the primary endpoint (detected using continuous heart rhythm monitoring). DISCUSSION: The Tight K Trial will assess whether a protocol to maintain serum potassium ≥ 3.6 mEq/L is non inferior to maintaining serum potassium ≥ 4.5 mEq/L in preventing new-onset AFACS after isolated CABG. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04053816. Registered on 13 August 2019. Last update 7 January 2021.

Consensus Statement for Protocols of Factorial Randomized Trials: Extension of the SPIRIT 2013 Statement.

Importance: Trial protocols outline a trial's objectives as well as the methods (design, conduct, and analysis) that will be used to meet those objectives, and transparent reporting of trial protocols ensures objectives are clear and facilitates appraisal regarding the suitability of study methods. Factorial trials, in which 2 or more interventions are assessed in the same set of participants, have unique methodological considerations. However, no extension of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 Statement, which provides guidance on reporting of trial protocols, for factorial trials is available. Objective: To develop a consensus-based extension to the SPIRIT 2013 Statement for factorial trials. Evidence Review: The SPIRIT extension for factorial trials was developed using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework. First, a list of reporting recommendations was generated using a scoping review of methodological articles identified using a MEDLINE search (inception to May 2019), which was supplemented with relevant articles from the personal collections of the authors. Second, a 3-round Delphi survey (January to June 2022, completed by 104 panelists from 14 countries) was conducted to assess the importance of items and identify additional recommendations. Third, a hybrid consensus meeting was held, attended by 15 panelists to finalize selection and wording of the checklist. Findings: This SPIRIT extension for factorial trials modified 9 of the 33 items in the SPIRIT 2013 checklist. Key reporting recommendations were that the rationale for using a factorial design should be provided, including whether an interaction is hypothesized; the treatment groups that will form the main comparisons should be identified; and statistical methods for each main comparison should be provided, including how interactions will be assessed. Conclusions and Relevance: In this consensus statement, 9 factorial-specific items were provided that should be addressed in all protocols of factorial trials to increase the trial's utility and transparency.

Reporting of Factorial Randomized Trials: Extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement.

Importance: Transparent reporting of randomized trials is essential to facilitate critical appraisal and interpretation of results. Factorial trials, in which 2 or more interventions are assessed in the same set of participants, have unique methodological considerations. However, reporting of factorial trials is suboptimal. Objective: To develop a consensus-based extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement for factorial trials. Design: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT extension for factorial trials was developed by (1) generating a list of reporting recommendations for factorial trials using a scoping review of methodological articles identified using a MEDLINE search (from inception to May 2019) and supplemented with relevant articles from the personal collections of the authors; (2) a 3-round Delphi survey between January and June 2022 to identify additional items and assess the importance of each item, completed by 104 panelists from 14 countries; and (3) a hybrid consensus meeting attended by 15 panelists to finalize the selection and wording of items for the checklist. Findings: This CONSORT extension for factorial trials modifies 16 of the 37 items in the CONSORT 2010 checklist and adds 1 new item. The rationale for the importance of each item is provided. Key recommendations are (1) the reason for using a factorial design should be reported, including whether an interaction is hypothesized, (2) the treatment groups that form the main comparisons should be clearly identified, and (3) for each main comparison, the estimated interaction effect and its precision should be reported. Conclusions and Relevance: This extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement provides guidance on the reporting of factorial randomized trials and should facilitate greater understanding of and transparency in their reporting.

Statistical analysis plan for a cluster randomised trial in Madhya Pradesh, India: support to rural India's public education system and impact on numeracy and literacy scores (STRIPES2).

BACKGROUND: India has made steady progress in improving rates of primary school enrolment but levels of learning achievement remain low. The Support To Rural India's Public Education System (STRIPES) trial provided evidence that an after-school para-teacher intervention improved numeracy and literacy levels in Telangana, India. The STRIPES2 trial investigates whether such an intervention will have a similar effect on the literacy and numeracy of primary school age children in the Satna District of Madhya Pradesh, India. METHODS/DESIGN: The STRIPES2 trial forms one part of a cluster-randomised controlled trial with villages (clusters) randomised to receive either a health (CHAMPION2) or education (STRIPES2) intervention. Building on the design of the earlier CHAMPION/STRIPES trial, villages receiving the health intervention are controls for the education intervention and vice versa. The primary outcome is a combined literacy and numeracy score. Secondary outcomes include separate scores for literacy and numeracy; caregivers' engagement with child's learning; expenditure on education; enrolment in school; caregiver's report of school attendance and the cost effectiveness of the intervention. Over 7000 primary school age children have been recruited and randomised in STRIPES2. DISCUSSION: This update to the published trial protocol gives a detailed plan for the statistical analysis of the STRIPES 2 trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry of India: CTRI/2019/05/019296. Registered on 23 May 2019. http://www.ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pdf_generate.php?trialid=31198&EncHid=&modid=&compid=%27,%2731198det%27.

Process and costs for readiness to safely implement immediate kangaroo mother care: a mixed methods evaluation from the OMWaNA trial at five hospitals in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth complications result in > 1 million child deaths annually, mostly in low- and middle-income countries. A World Health Organisation (WHO)-led trial in hospitals with intensive care reported reduced mortality within 28 days among newborns weighing 1000-1799 g who received immediate kangaroo mother care (iKMC) compared to those who received standard care. Evidence is needed regarding the process and costs of implementing iKMC, particularly in non-intensive care settings. METHODS: We describe actions undertaken to implement iKMC, estimate financial and economic costs of essential resources and infrastructure improvements, and assess readiness for newborn care after these improvements at five Ugandan hospitals participating in the OMWaNA trial. We estimated costs from a health service provider perspective and explored cost drivers and cost variation across hospitals. We assessed readiness to deliver small and sick newborn care (WHO level-2) using a tool developed by Newborn Essential Solutions and Technologies and the United Nations Children's Fund. RESULTS: Following the addition of space to accommodate beds for iKMC, floor space in the neonatal units ranged from 58 m2 to 212 m2. Costs of improvements were lowest at the national referral hospital (financial: $31,354; economic: $45,051; 2020 USD) and varied across the four smaller hospitals (financial: $68,330-$95,796; economic: $99,430-$113,881). In a standardised 20-bed neonatal unit offering a level of care comparable to the four smaller hospitals, the total financial cost could be in the range of $70,000 to $80,000 if an existing space could be repurposed or remodelled, or $95,000 if a new unit needed to be constructed. Even after improvements, the facility assessments demonstrated broad variability in laboratory and pharmacy capacity as well as the availability of essential equipment and supplies. CONCLUSIONS: These five Ugandan hospitals required substantial resource inputs to allow safe implementation of iKMC. Before widespread scale-up of iKMC, the affordability and efficiency of this investment must be assessed, considering variation in costs across hospitals and levels of care. These findings should help inform planning and budgeting as well as decisions about if, where, and how to implement iKMC, particularly in settings where space, devices, and specialised staff for newborn care are unavailable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811432 . Registered: 23 June 2016.

Understanding the effects of nutrition-sensitive agriculture interventions with participatory videos and women's group meetings on maternal and child nutrition in rural Odisha, India: A mixed-methods process evaluation.

A trial of three nutrition-sensitive agriculture interventions with participatory videos and women's group meetings in rural Odisha, India, found improvements in maternal and child dietary diversity, limited effects on agricultural production, and no effects on women and children's nutritional status. Our process evaluation explored fidelity, reach, and mechanisms behind interventions' effects. We also examined how context affected implementation, mechanisms, and outcomes. We used data from intervention monitoring systems, review notes, trial surveys, 32 case studies with families (n = 91 family members), and 20 group discussions with women's group members and intervention workers (n = 181 and 32, respectively). We found that interventions were implemented with high fidelity. Groups reached around half of the mothers of children under 2 years. Videos and meetings increased women's knowledge, motivation and confidence to suggest or make changes to their diets and agricultural production. Families responded in diverse ways. Many adopted or improved rainfed homestead garden cultivation for consumption, which could explain gains in maternal and child dietary diversity seen in the impact evaluation. Cultivation for income was less common. This was often due to small landholdings, poor access to irrigation and decision-making dominated by men. Interventions helped change norms about heavy work during pregnancy, but young women with little family support still did considerable work. Women's ability to shape cultivation, income and workload decisions was strongly influenced by support from male relatives. Future nutrition-sensitive agriculture interventions could include additional flexibility to address families' land, water, labour and time constraints, as well as actively engage with spouses and in-laws.

Statistical methods for non-adherence in non-inferiority trials: useful and used? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In non-inferiority trials with non-adherence to interventions (or non-compliance), intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses are often performed; however, non-random non-adherence generally biases these estimates of efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To identify statistical methods that adjust for the impact of non-adherence and thus estimate the causal effects of experimental interventions in non-inferiority trials. DESIGN: A systematic review was conducted by searching the Ovid MEDLINE database (31 December 2020) to identify (1) randomised trials with a primary analysis for non-inferiority that applied (or planned to apply) statistical methods to account for the impact of non-adherence to interventions, and (2) methodology papers that described such statistical methods and included a non-inferiority trial application. OUTCOMES: The statistical methods identified, their impacts on non-inferiority conclusions, and their advantages/disadvantages. RESULTS: A total of 24 papers were included (4 protocols, 13 results papers and 7 methodology papers) reporting relevant methods on 26 occasions. The most common were instrumental variable approaches (n=9), including observed adherence as a covariate within a regression model (n=3), and modelling adherence as a time-varying covariate in a time-to-event analysis (n=3). Other methods included rank preserving structural failure time models and inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting. The methods identified in protocols and results papers were more commonly specified as sensitivity analyses (n=13) than primary analyses (n=3). Twelve results papers included an alternative analysis of the same outcome; conclusions regarding non-inferiority were in agreement on six occasions and could not be compared on six occasions (different measures of effect or results not provided in full). CONCLUSIONS: Available statistical methods which attempt to account for the impact of non-adherence to interventions were used infrequently. Therefore, firm inferences about their influence on non-inferiority conclusions could not be drawn. Since intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses do not guarantee unbiased conclusions regarding non-inferiority, the methods identified should be considered for use in sensitivity analyses. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020177458.

Maintenance of Serum Potassium Levels ≥3.6 mEq/L Versus ≥4.5 mEq/L After Isolated Elective Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and the Incidence of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation: Pilot and Feasibility Study Results.

OBJECTIVE: Serum potassium levels frequently are maintained at high levels (≥4.5 mEq/L) to prevent atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery (AFACS), with limited evidence. Before undertaking a noninferiority randomized controlled trial to investigate the noninferiority of maintaining levels ≥3.6 mEq/L compared with this strategy, the authors wanted to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and safety of recruiting for such a trial. DESIGN: Pilot and feasibility study of full trial protocol. SETTING: Two university tertiary-care hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 160 individuals undergoing first-time elective isolated coronary artery bypass grafting. INTERVENTIONS: Randomization (1:1) to protocols aiming to maintain serum potassium at either ≥3.6 mEq/L or ≥4.5 mEq/L after arrival in the postoperative care facility and for 120 hours or until discharge from the hospital or AFACS occurred, whichever happened first. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcomes: (1) whether it was possible to recruit and randomize 160 patients for six months (estimated 20% of those eligible); (2) maintaining supplementation protocol violation rate ≤10% (defined as potassium supplementation being inappropriately administered or withheld according to treatment allocation after a serum potassium measurement); and (3) retaining 28-day follow-up rates ≥90% after surgery. Between August 2017 and April 2018, 723 patients were screened and 160 (22%) were recruited. Potassium protocol violation rate = 9.8%. Follow-up rate at 28 days = 94.3%. Data on planned outcomes for the full trial also were collected. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to recruit and randomize patients to a study assessing the impact of maintaining serum potassium concentrations at either ≥3.6 mEq/L or ≥4.5 mEq/L on the incidence of AFACS.

Reducing bias in trials from reactions to measurement: the MERIT study including developmental work and expert workshop.

BACKGROUND: Measurement can affect the people being measured; for example, asking people to complete a questionnaire can result in changes in behaviour (the 'question-behaviour effect'). The usual methods of conduct and analysis of randomised controlled trials implicitly assume that the taking of measurements has no effect on research participants. Changes in measured behaviour and other outcomes due to measurement reactivity may therefore introduce bias in otherwise well-conducted randomised controlled trials, yielding incorrect estimates of intervention effects, including underestimates. OBJECTIVES: The main objectives were (1) to promote awareness of how and where taking measurements can lead to bias and (2) to provide recommendations on how best to avoid or minimise bias due to measurement reactivity in randomised controlled trials of interventions to improve health. METHODS: We conducted (1) a series of systematic and rapid reviews, (2) a Delphi study and (3) an expert workshop. A protocol paper was published [Miles LM, Elbourne D, Farmer A, Gulliford M, Locock L, McCambridge J, et al. Bias due to MEasurement Reactions In Trials to improve health (MERIT): protocol for research to develop MRC guidance. Trials 2018;19:653]. An updated systematic review examined whether or not measuring participants had an effect on participants' health-related behaviours relative to no-measurement controls. Three new rapid systematic reviews were conducted to identify (1) existing guidance on measurement reactivity, (2) existing systematic reviews of studies that have quantified the effects of measurement on outcomes relating to behaviour and affective outcomes and (3) experimental studies that have investigated the effects of exposure to objective measurements of behaviour on health-related behaviour. The views of 40 experts defined the scope of the recommendations in two waves of data collection during the Delphi procedure. A workshop aimed to produce a set of recommendations that were formed in discussion in groups. RESULTS: Systematic reviews - we identified a total of 43 studies that compared interview or questionnaire measurement with no measurement and these had an overall small effect (standardised mean difference 0.06, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.09; n = 104,096, I2 = 54%). The three rapid systematic reviews identified no existing guidance on measurement reactivity, but we did identify five systematic reviews that quantified the effects of measurement on outcomes (all focused on the question-behaviour effect, with all standardised mean differences in the range of 0.09-0.28) and 16 studies that examined reactive effects of objective measurement of behaviour, with most evidence of reactivity of small effect and short duration. Delphi procedure - substantial agreement was reached on the scope of the present recommendations. Workshop - 14 recommendations and three main aims were produced. The aims were to identify whether or not bias is likely to be a problem for a trial, to decide whether or not to collect further quantitative or qualitative data to inform decisions about if bias is likely to be a problem, and to identify how to design trials to minimise the likelihood of this bias. LIMITATION: The main limitation was the shortage of high-quality evidence regarding the extent of measurement reactivity, with some notable exceptions, and the circumstances that are likely to bring it about. CONCLUSION: We hope that these recommendations will be used to develop new trials that are less likely to be at risk of bias. FUTURE WORK: The greatest need is to increase the number of high-quality primary studies regarding the extent of measurement reactivity. STUDY REGISTRATION: The first systematic review in this study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018102511. FUNDING: Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research Programme.

When people are asked to complete measures such as questionnaires in research studies this can produce changes in the behaviour or emotions of those people. For example, people who are asked to complete questionnaires about drinking alcohol have been found to drink slightly less, on average, than people who are not asked to complete questionnaires. Current established methods of research usually ignore these reactions to measurement. The present research aimed to produce recommendations for how best to deal with reactions to measurement. The scope of these recommendations was limited to 'trials' used to test whether or not a treatment improves health. To do this, we identified relevant research studies that have investigated various different aspects of whether or not measurement affects the people being measured. We then consulted 40 experts about what the current recommendations should consider and what was not within the scope of the current recommendations. We then gathered 23 experts together for 2 days to produce a set of recommendations. We found 43 research studies that have looked at whether or not being asked to complete questionnaires or being interviewed affects the behaviour of those people invited. In general, there were some effects of completing questionnaires, but the effects were not very consistent across research studies. There were few studies that have looked at the effects of using measures of behaviour other than questionnaires (e.g. blood pressure cuffs). We could find no existing recommendations for how best to deal with reactions to measurement in research studies that examine whether or not treatments improve health. We have produced 14 recommendations for researchers to better take account of the issue of measuring affecting the people being measured. We hope that this will help future research produce more accurate answers. We also identified that there is a need for more studies of the effects of measures other than questionnaires.

Reducing bias in trials due to reactions to measurement: experts produced recommendations informed by evidence.

OBJECTIVE: This study (MEasurement Reactions In Trials) aimed to produce recommendations on how best to minimize bias from measurement reactivity (MR) in randomized controlled trials of interventions to improve health. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The MERIT study consisted of: (1) an updated systematic review that examined whether measuring participants had effects on participants' health-related behaviors, relative to no-measurement controls, and three rapid reviews to identify: (i) existing guidance on MR; (ii) existing systematic reviews of studies that have quantified the effects of measurement on behavioral or affective outcomes; and (iii) studies that have investigated the effects of objective measurements of behavior on health-related behavior; (2) a Delphi study to identify the scope of the recommendations; and (3) an expert workshop in October 2018 to discuss potential recommendations in groups. RESULTS: Fourteen recommendations were produced by the expert group to: (1) identify whether bias is likely to be a problem for a trial; (2) decide whether to collect data about whether bias is likely to be a problem; (3) design trials to minimize the likelihood of this bias. CONCLUSION: These recommendations raise awareness of how and where taking measurements can produce bias in trials, and are thus helpful for trial design.

Effect of nutrition-sensitive agriculture interventions with participatory videos and women's group meetings on maternal and child nutritional outcomes in rural Odisha, India (UPAVAN trial): a four-arm, observer-blind, cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Almost a quarter of the world's undernourished people live in India. We tested the effects of three nutrition-sensitive agriculture (NSA) interventions on maternal and child nutrition in India. METHODS: We did a parallel, four-arm, observer-blind, cluster-randomised trial in Keonjhar district, Odisha, India. A cluster was one or more villages with a combined minimum population of 800 residents. The clusters were allocated 1:1:1:1 to a control group or an intervention group of fortnightly women's groups meetings and household visits over 32 months using: NSA videos (AGRI group); NSA and nutrition-specific videos (AGRI-NUT group); or NSA videos and a nutrition-specific participatory learning and action (PLA) cycle meetings and videos (AGRI-NUT+PLA group). Primary outcomes were the proportion of children aged 6-23 months consuming at least four of seven food groups the previous day and mean maternal body-mass index (BMI). Secondary outcomes were proportion of mothers consuming at least five of ten food groups and child wasting (proportion of children with weight-for-height Z score SD <-2). Outcomes were assessed in children and mothers through cross-sectional surveys at baseline and at endline, 36 months later. Analyses were by intention to treat. Participants and intervention facilitators were not blinded to allocation; the research team were. This trial is registered at ISRCTN, ISRCTN65922679. FINDINGS: 148 of 162 clusters assessed for eligibility were enrolled and randomly allocated to trial groups (37 clusters per group). Baseline surveys took place from Nov 24, 2016, to Jan 24, 2017; clusters were randomised from December, 2016, to January, 2017; and interventions were implemented from March 20, 2017, to Oct 31, 2019, and endline surveys done from Nov 19, 2019, to Jan 12, 2020, in an average of 32 households per cluster. All clusters were included in the analyses. There was an increase in the proportion of children consuming at least four of seven food groups in the AGRI-NUT (adjusted relative risk [RR] 1·19, 95% CI 1·03 to 1·37, p=0·02) and AGRI-NUT+PLA (1·27, 1·11 to 1·46, p=0·001) groups, but not AGRI (1·06, 0·91 to 1·23, p=0·44), compared with the control group. We found no effects on mean maternal BMI (adjusted mean differences vs control, AGRI -0·05, -0·34 to 0·24; AGRI-NUT 0·04, -0·26 to 0·33; AGRI-NUT+PLA -0·03, -0·3 to 0·23). An increase in the proportion of mothers consuming at least five of ten food groups was seen in the AGRI (adjusted RR 1·21, 1·01 to 1·45) and AGRI-NUT+PLA (1·30, 1·10 to 1·53) groups compared with the control group, but not in AGRI-NUT (1·16, 0·98 to 1·38). We found no effects on child wasting (adjusted RR vs control, AGRI 0·95, 0·73 to 1·24; AGRI-NUT 0·96, 0·72 to 1·29; AGRI-NUT+PLA 0·96, 0·73 to 1·26). INTERPRETATION: Women's groups using combinations of NSA videos, nutrition-specific videos, and PLA cycle meetings improved maternal and child diet quality in rural Odisha, India. These components have been implemented separately in several low-income settings; effects could be increased by scaling up together. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, UK AID from the UK Government, and US Agency for International Development.

Patient and public involvement prior to trial initiation: lessons learnt for rapid partnership in the COVID-19 era.

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) describes the active involvement of patients and the public in the research process. Through PPI, patients and members of the public are increasingly involved in the design and conduct of clinical trials. PPI has been shown to improve the quality and relevance of research. During the COVID-19 pandemic, clinical trials have been playing a vital role in helping us find ways to prevent and treat the infection and improve our understanding of the virus. It is important that patients and the public are actively involved in deciding how COVID-19 research is carried out. Unfortunately, Research Ethics Committees in the UK have seen far less PPI for COVID-19 research studies compared with research before the pandemic. A key reason for this is that research is being designed much faster than normal and researchers may feel they do not have time to properly involve patients and the public. In this paper, we share our experiences of PPI for a COVID-19 clinical trial. We show that it is possible to rapidly involve patients and the public in COVID-19 clinical trials. We also explain how the design of the clinical trial was changed in response to feedback from public contributors. Lastly, we discuss the wider learning from this process which might be useful for researchers planning PPI activities for COVID-19 clinical trials in the future. BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are playing a critical role in the global public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the increasing recognition of the value of PPI in clinical trials, just 22% of the COVID-19 research proposals reviewed by Research Ethics Committees in the UK at the start of the pandemic reported PPI. There is a perception that PPI might result in delays in delivering research and therefore delays in obtaining important results. In this paper, we report our experience of rapid PPI for a COVID-19 clinical trial. METHODS: RAPID-19 is a COVID-19 clinical trial which was planned to be submitted for fast-track ethics review in the United Kingdom. During the development of the trial protocol, the PPI Panel at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Clinical Trials Unit was involved in the design of the study. The meeting with the PPI Panel lasted just over 1 h and was conducted by teleconference. RESULTS: Although we only had a short period of time to explore the study with the PPI Panel, we were able to gain valuable insight into how the trial would be perceived by potential trial participants. Substantive changes were made to the trial to improve the acceptability of the research without compromising the study timelines. Having access to public contributors with relevant lived experience is an important resource for a Clinical Trials Unit and is critical for rapid PPI. The move to remote working due to lockdown required virtual discussions which helped to overcome some of the barriers to organising face-to-face meetings at short notice. CONCLUSIONS: PPI for clinical trials can be conducted in a time-efficient manner within the pressured environment of a pandemic. Involving PPI contributors at an early stage in protocol development maximised the opportunity to shape and influence the trial as well as limited potential delays which could occur if changes to the protocol had to be made at a later stage.

ECMO for severe ARDS: systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) compared to conventional management in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) performed after Jan 1, 2000 comparing ECMO to conventional management in patients with severe ARDS. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Primary analysis was by intent-to-treat. RESULTS: We identified two RCTs (CESAR and EOLIA) and combined data from 429 patients. On day 90, 77 of the 214 (36%) ECMO-group and 103 of the 215 (48%) control group patients had died (relative risk (RR), 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6-0.94; P = 0.013; I2 = 0%). In the per-protocol and as-treated analyses the RRs were 0.75 (95% CI 0.6-0.94) and 0.86 (95% CI 0.68-1.09), respectively. Rescue ECMO was used for 36 (17%) of the 215 control patients (35 in EOLIA and 1 in CESAR). The RR of 90-day treatment failure, defined as death for the ECMO-group and death or crossover to ECMO for the control group was 0.65 (95% CI 0.52-0.8; I2 = 0%). Patients randomised to ECMO had more days alive out of the ICU and without respiratory, cardiovascular, renal and neurological failure. The only significant treatment-covariate interaction in subgroups was lower mortality with ECMO in patients with two or less organs failing at randomization. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis of individual patient data in severe ARDS, 90-day mortality was significantly lowered by ECMO compared with conventional management.

Protocol for a cluster randomised trial in Madhya Pradesh, India: community health promotion and medical provision and impact on neonates (CHAMPION2); and support to rural India's public education system and impact on numeracy and literacy scores (STRIPES2).

BACKGROUND: Rural areas of India exhibit high neonatal mortality, and low literacy and numeracy. We assess the effect of a complex package of health interventions on neonatal survival and the effect of out-of-school-hours teaching on children's literacy and numeracy in rural Madhya Pradesh. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a cluster-randomised controlled trial with villages (clusters) receiving either a health (CHAMPION2) or education (STRIPES2) intervention. Building on the design of the earlier CHAMPION/STRIPES trial, villages receiving the health intervention are controls for the education intervention and vice versa. The clusters are 196 villages in Satna district, Madhya Pradesh, India: each is at least 5 km from a Community Health Centre, has a population below 2500, and has at least 15 children eligible for the education intervention. The participants in CHAMPION2 are resident married women younger than 50 years of age who had not undergone a family planning operation, provided they are enumerated pre-randomisation or marry a man enumerated pre-randomisation. The participants in STRIPES2 are resident children born 16 June 2010 to 15 June 2013, not in school before the 2018-2019 school year and intending to enrol in first grade in 2018-2019 or 2019-2020. DISCUSSION: In CHAMPION2, the NICE Foundation will deliver a 3.5-year programme comprising Accredited Social Health Activists or village health workers and midwives promoting health knowledge and providing antenatal, postnatal, and neonatal healthcare; community mobilisation; referrals to appropriate government health facilities; and a health education campaign. In STRIPES2, the Pratham Education Foundation will deliver a programme of village-based, before/after school support focusing on literacy and numeracy. As controls, the CHAMPION2 control villages will receive the usual health services (plus the STRIPES2 intervention). STRIPES2 control villages will receive the usual education services (plus the CHAMPION2 intervention). The primary outcome in CHAMPION2 is neonatal mortality. Secondary outcomes include antenatal, delivery, immediate neonatal and postnatal care practices, maternal mortality, stillbirths, early neonatal deaths, perinatal deaths, health knowledge, hospital admissions, maternal blood transfusions, and cost effectiveness. The primary outcome in STRIPES2 is a composite literacy and numeracy test score. Secondary outcomes include separate literacy and numeracy scores, reported school enrolment and attendance, parents' engagement with children's learning, and cost effectiveness. Independent research and implementation teams will conduct the trial. Trial Steering and Data Monitoring Committees, with independent members, will supervise the trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registry of India: CTRI/2019/05/019296. Registered on 23 May 2019. http://www.ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pdf_generate.php?trialid=31198&EncHid=&modid=&compid=%27,%2731198det%27.