Effectiveness of interventions for the management of primary frozen shoulder : a systematic review of randomized trials.

AIMS: This systematic review places a recently completed multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT), UK FROST, in the context of existing randomized evidence for the management of primary frozen shoulder. UK FROST compared the effectiveness of pre-specified physiotherapy techniques with a steroid injection (PTSI), manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) with a steroid injection, and arthroscopic capsular release (ACR). This review updates a 2012 review focusing on the effectiveness of MUA, ACR, hydrodilatation, and PTSI. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, Science Citation Index, Clinicaltrials.gov, CENTRAL, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry were searched up to December 2018. Reference lists of included studies were screened. No language restrictions applied. Eligible studies were RCTs comparing the effectiveness of MUA, ACR, PTSI, and hydrodilatation against each other, or supportive care or no treatment, for the management of primary frozen shoulder. RESULTS: Nine RCTs were included. The primary outcome of patient-reported shoulder function at long-term follow-up (> 6 months and ≤ 12 months) was reported for five treatment comparisons across four studies. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were: ACR versus MUA: 0.21 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.42), ACR versus supportive care: -0.13 (95% CI -1.10 to 0.83), and ACR versus PTSI: 0.33 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.59) and 0.25 (95% CI -0.34 to 0.85), all favouring ACR; MUA versus supportive care: 0 (95% CI -0.44 to 0.44) not favouring either; and MUA versus PTSI: 0.12 (95% CI -0.14 to 0.37) favouring MUA. None of these differences met the threshold of clinical significance agreed for the UK FROST and most confidence intervals included zero. CONCLUSION: The findings from a recent multicentre RCT provided the strongest evidence that, when compared with each other, neither PTSI, MUA, nor ACR are clinically superior. Evidence from smaller RCTs did not change this conclusion. The effectiveness of hydrodilatation based on four RCTs was inconclusive and there remains an evidence gap. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):773-784.

Home environmental assessments and modification delivered by occupational therapists to reduce falls in people aged 65 years and over: the OTIS RCT.

BACKGROUND: Falls and fall-related fractures are highly prevalent among older people and are a major contributor to morbidity and costs to individuals and society. Only one small pilot trial has evaluated the effectiveness of a home hazard assessment and environmental modification in the UK. This trial reported a reduction in falls as a secondary outcome, and no economic evaluation was undertaken. Therefore, the results need to be confirmed and a cost-effectiveness analysis needs to be undertaken. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a home hazard assessment and environmental modification delivered by occupational therapists for preventing falls among community-dwelling people aged ≥ 65 years who are at risk of falling, relative to usual care. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, modified cohort randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation and a qualitative study. SETTING: Eight NHS trusts in primary and secondary care in England. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 1331 participants were randomised (intervention group, n = 430; usual-care group, n = 901) via a secure, remote service. Blinding was not possible. INTERVENTIONS: All participants received a falls prevention leaflet and routine care from their general practitioner. The intervention group were additionally offered one home environmental assessment and modifications recommended or provided to identify and manage personal fall-related hazards, delivered by an occupational therapist. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the number of falls per participant during the 12 months from randomisation. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of fallers and multiple fallers, time to fall, fear of falling, fracture rate, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The primary analysis included all 1331 randomised participants and indicated weak evidence of a difference in fall rate between the two groups, with an increase in the intervention group relative to usual care (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.38; p = 0.07). A similar proportion of participants in the intervention group (57.0%) and the usual-care group (56.2%) reported at least one fall over 12 months. There were no differences in any of the secondary outcomes. The base-case cost-effectiveness analysis from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective found that, on average per participant, the intervention was associated with additional costs (£18.78, 95% confidence interval £16.33 to £21.24), but was less effective (mean quality-adjusted life-year loss -0.0042, 95% confidence interval -0.0041 to -0.0043). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated uncertainty in these findings. No serious, related adverse events were reported. The intervention was largely delivered as intended, but recommendations were followed to a varying degree. LIMITATIONS: Outcome data were self-reported by participants, which may have led to inaccuracies in the reported falls data. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that an occupational therapist-delivered home assessment and modification reduced falls in this population of community-dwelling participants aged ≥ 65 years deemed at risk of falling. The intervention was more expensive and less effective than usual care, and therefore it does not provide a cost-effective alternative to usual care. FUTURE WORK: An evaluation of falls prevention advice in a higher-risk population, perhaps those previously hospitalised for a fall, or given by other professional staff could be justified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN22202133. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Falling is a common problem among older people. In fact, up to half of people aged over 80 years fall each year, with most falls happening inside the home. Unfortunately, some falls cause serious injuries, such as broken bones. People often think that falls are part of getting older and that little can be done to stop them from falling. However, there are many ways to reduce falls. The Occupational Therapist Intervention Study (OTIS) explored whether or not a home assessment visit by an NHS occupational therapist could reduce falls among older people who are likely to be at risk of falling. In total, 1331 people aged 65 years or older living in England took part in the study. These people were all sent an Age UK leaflet about how to prevent falls, and 430 people were selected at random to receive a visit from an occupational therapist. The occupational therapist assessed their homes for hazards, such as slippery floors or poor lighting, and made suggestions for changes. We collected information from participants using monthly falls calendars and postal questionnaires to ask them about their falls, their quality of life, how often they used NHS services and how often they used paid care workers. We also asked them about whether they had had equipment and adaptations installed as a result of the assessments. We found that the home assessment visits did not reduce the number of falls people had or make any difference to participants' quality of life. However, many of the recommendations made by the occupational therapists were not carried out. The home assessment visits by an occupational therapist were not good value for money.

Demographic and Clinical Factors that Influence the Visual Response to Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy in Patients with Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) is a leading cause of blind registrations in the developed world. Standard therapy includes the use of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) drugs, and whilst the clinical efficacy is well established, there is variability in the clinical effect of visual outcome. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify whether there is evidence for the influence of demographic and clinical factors on the effectiveness of anti-VEGF therapy in patients with nAMD, in settings comparable to the National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. Electronic databases Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies dated from 2005 onwards. Studies were appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Score, and a narrative synthesis was used. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Population: Patients with nAMD being treated with anti-VEGF therapy. Comparator: Presence or absence of potential predictive demographic and clinical factors. SETTINGS: Comparable settings to NHS hospitals. OUTCOMES: Predicting demographic and clinical factors. STUDY DESIGNS: Randomised controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies and case series dated from 2005. RESULTS: Thirty papers were identified in this review. The evidence suggests that the number of anti-VEGF injections that patients receive, age and lesion size at baseline are factors that influence how effective anti-VEGF therapy is in the short and long term. There was also evidence that suggested that baseline visual acuity influenced the effectiveness of anti-VEGF therapy at longer time points of more than 2 years. Due to a lack of standardised statistical reporting among the included studies, it was not possible to undertake a meaningful statistical synthesis or meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This review has demonstrated that there is some evidence of clinical and demographic factors that affect the effectiveness of anti-VEGF therapy and hence variation in visual acuity (VA) outcome. However, this review was unable to identify as wide a range of factors as was hoped. The findings of this review are important because some of the factors, such as VA and lesion size at diagnosis and the number of injections, are potentially modifiable through improvements in early diagnosis and service provision. Future work also needs to focus on the importance of this variation, such as the effect on patients' quality of life, and how variation can be minimised. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review has been registered with PROSPERO (Registration number CRD42018094191).

Cost-Effectiveness of a Multifaceted Podiatry Intervention for the Prevention of Falls in Older People: The REducing Falls with Orthoses and a Multifaceted Podiatry Intervention Trial Findings.

BACKGROUND: Falls are a major cause of morbidity among older people. Multifaceted interventions may be effective in preventing falls and related fractures. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness alongside the REducing Falls with Orthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention (REFORM) trial. METHODS: REFORM was a pragmatic multicentre cohort randomised controlled trial in England and Ireland; 1,010 participants (> 65 years) were randomised to receive either a podiatry intervention (n = 493), including foot and ankle strengthening exercises, foot orthoses, new footwear if required, and a falls prevention leaflet, or usual podiatry treatment plus a falls prevention leaflet (n = 517). PRIMARY OUTCOME: incidence of falls per participant in the 12 months following randomisation. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: proportion of fallers and quality of life (EQ-5D-3L) which was converted into quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each participant. Differences in mean costs and QALYs at 12 months were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention relative to usual care. Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted in accordance with National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence reference case standards, using a regression-based approach with costs expressed in GBP (2015 price). The base case analysis used an intention-to-treat approach on the imputed data set using multiple imputation. RESULTS: There was a small, non-statistically significant reduction in the incidence rate of falls in the intervention group (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.73-1.05, p = 0.16). Participants allocated to the intervention group accumulated on average marginally higher QALYs than the usual care participants (mean difference 0.0129, 95% CI -0.0050 to 0.0314). The intervention costs were on average GBP 252 more per participant compared to the usual care participants (95% CI GBP -69 to GBP 589). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged between GBP 19,494 and GBP 20,593 per QALY gained, below the conventional National Health Service cost-effectiveness thresholds of GBP 20,000 to GBP 30,000 per additional QALY. The probability that the podiatry intervention is cost-effective at a threshold of GBP 30,000 per QALY gained was 0.65. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: The benefits of the intervention justified the moderate cost. The intervention could be a cost-effective option for falls prevention when compared with usual care in the UK.

Determining the optimal approach to identifying individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: The DOC study.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: Early identification of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) results in patients receiving appropriate management for their condition at an earlier stage in their disease. The determining the optimal approach to identifying individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (DOC) study was a case-finding study to enhance early identification of COPD in primary care, which evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of a series of simple lung function tests and symptom-based case-finding questionnaires. METHODS: Current smokers aged 35 or more were invited to undertake a series of case-finding tools, which comprised lung function tests (specifically, spirometry, microspirometry, peak flow meter, and WheezoMeter) and several case-finding questionnaires. The effectiveness of these tests, individually or in combination, to identify small airways obstruction was evaluated against the gold standard of spirometry, with the quality of spirometry tests assessed by independent overreaders. The study was conducted with general practices in the Yorkshire and Humberside area, in the UK. RESULTS: Six hundred eighty-one individuals met the inclusion criteria, with 444 participants completing their study appointments. A total of 216 (49%) with good-quality spirometry readings were included in the analysis. The most effective case-finding tools were found to be the peak flow meter alone, the peak flow meter plus WheezoMeter, and microspirometry alone. In addition to the main analysis, where the severity of airflow obstruction was based on fixed ratios and percent of predicted values, sensitivity analyses were conducted by using lower limit of normal values. CONCLUSIONS: This research informs the choice of test for COPD identification; case-finding by use of the peak flow meter or microspirometer could be used routinely in primary care for suspected COPD patients. Only those testing positive to these tests would move on to full spirometry, thereby reducing unnecessary spirometric testing.

The impact of lung function case-finding tests on smoking behaviour: A nested randomised trial within a case-finding cohort.

RATIONALE AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Increasing awareness of people's lung health through the use of lung function tests or symptom-based questionnaires is a potential method to aid smoking cessation. We investigated the impact of case-finding lung function tests for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on smoking behaviour. METHODS: Our trial used a novel waiting list randomised controlled trial design, nested within a case-finding cohort study. The cohort comprised current smokers aged 35 years or more, from general practices in Yorkshire and Humberside, who were randomised to receive lung function tests (spirometry, microspirometry, peak flow meter measurement, and a WheezoMeter) and case-finding questionnaires either immediately ("tests now") or later ("waiting list" control). Outcome measures included self-reported smoking cessation and number of cigarettes smoked at follow-up (at 2, 3, or 6 months after randomisation, depending on study site), with 409 participants included in the primary analysis. RESULTS: Six hundred seventy-four participants were randomised using stratified block randomisation to the 2 groups (340 to "tests now" and 334 to "waiting list"), with 409 included in the primary analysis (194 in "tests now" and 215 in "waiting list" groups). Smoking cessation at follow-up was very similar across groups (8.8% in the "tests now" group, compared with 9.2% in the "waiting list" group). Completing case-finding lung function tests did not significantly impact smoking cessation (OR 1.00, 95% CI, 0.57-1.77, adjusting for age, sex, baseline number of cigarettes smoked, and study site). A sensitivity analysis, assuming that participants with missing data were still smoking, gave similar results (OR 0.86, 95% CI, 0.47-1.56). Analysis of the number of cigarettes smoked at follow-up using negative binomial regression adjusting for the same factors above gave an incidence rate ratio of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.88-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence from this trial of an effect of lung function tests on smoking cessation among a population of smokers aged 35 years or over. Indeed, when assuming that those with missing data were smokers, a slightly lower odds of smoking cessation was observed in the "test now" group compared with the "waiting list" group.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for falls prevention in older people: a multicentre cohort randomised controlled trial (the REducing Falls with ORthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention trial).

BACKGROUND: Falls are a serious cause of morbidity and cost to individuals and society. Evidence suggests that foot problems and inappropriate footwear may increase the risk of falling. Podiatric interventions could help reduce falls; however, there is limited evidence regarding their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for preventing falls in community-dwelling older people at risk of falling, relative to usual care. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentred, cohort randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation and qualitative study. SETTING: Nine NHS trusts in the UK and one site in Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 1010 participants aged ≥ 65 years were randomised (intervention, n = 493; usual care, n = 517) via a secure, remote service. Blinding was not possible. INTERVENTIONS: All participants received a falls prevention leaflet and routine care from their podiatrist and general practitioner. The intervention also consisted of footwear advice, footwear provision if required, foot orthoses and foot- and ankle-strengthening exercises. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incidence rate of falls per participant in the 12 months following randomisation. The secondary outcomes included the proportion of fallers and multiple fallers, time to first fall, fear of falling, fracture rate, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The primary analysis consisted of 484 (98.2%) intervention and 507 (98.1%) usual-care participants. There was a non-statistically significant reduction in the incidence rate of falls in the intervention group [adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.05; p = 0.16]. The proportion of participants experiencing a fall was lower (50% vs. 55%, adjusted odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.00; p = 0.05). No differences were observed in key secondary outcomes. No serious, unexpected and related adverse events were reported. The intervention costs £252.17 more per participant (95% CI -£69.48 to £589.38) than usual care, was marginally more beneficial in terms of HRQoL measured via the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions [mean quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) difference 0.0129, 95% CI -0.0050 to 0.0314 QALYs] and had a 65% probability of being cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained. The intervention was generally acceptable to podiatrists and trial participants. LIMITATIONS: Owing to the difficulty in calculating a sample size for a count outcome, the sample size was based on detecting a difference in the proportion of participants experiencing at least one fall, and not the primary outcome. We are therefore unable to confirm if the trial was sufficiently powered for the primary outcome. The findings are not generalisable to patients who are not receiving podiatry care. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was safe and potentially effective. Although the primary outcome measure did not reach significance, a lower fall rate was observed in the intervention group. The reduction in the proportion of older adults who experienced a fall was of borderline statistical significance. The economic evaluation suggests that the intervention could be cost-effective. FUTURE WORK: Further research could examine whether or not the intervention could be delivered in group sessions, by physiotherapists, or in high-risk patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68240461. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cohort Randomised Controlled Trial of a Multifaceted Podiatry Intervention for the Prevention of Falls in Older People (The REFORM Trial).

BACKGROUND: Falls are a major cause of morbidity among older people. A multifaceted podiatry intervention may reduce the risk of falling. This study evaluated such an intervention. DESIGN: Pragmatic cohort randomised controlled trial in England and Ireland. 1010 participants were randomised (493 to the Intervention group and 517 to Usual Care) to either: a podiatry intervention, including foot and ankle exercises, foot orthoses and, if required, new footwear, and a falls prevention leaflet or usual podiatry treatment plus a falls prevention leaflet. The primary outcome was the incidence rate of self-reported falls per participant in the 12 months following randomisation. Secondary outcomes included: proportion of fallers and those reporting multiple falls, time to first fall, fear of falling, Frenchay Activities Index, Geriatric Depression Scale, foot pain, health related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: In the primary analysis were 484 (98.2%) intervention and 507 (98.1%) control participants. There was a small, non statistically significant reduction in the incidence rate of falls in the intervention group (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.05, p = 0.16). The proportion of participants experiencing a fall was lower (49.7 vs 54.9%, adjusted odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.00, p = 0.05) as was the proportion experiencing two or more falls (27.6% vs 34.6%, adjusted odds ratio 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.90, p = 0.01). There was an increase (p = 0.02) in foot pain for the intervention group. There were no statistically significant differences in other outcomes. The intervention was more costly but marginally more beneficial in terms of health-related quality of life (mean quality adjusted life year (QALY) difference 0.0129, 95% CI -0.0050 to 0.0314) and had a 65% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: There was a small reduction in falls. The intervention may be cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN68240461.

A methodological review of recent meta-analyses has found significant heterogeneity in age between randomized groups.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence to suggest that component randomized controlled trials (RCTs) within systematic reviews may be biased. It is important that these reviews are identified to prevent erroneous conclusions influencing health care policies and decisions. PURPOSE: To assess the likelihood of bias in trials in 12 meta-analyses. DESIGN: A review of 12 systematic reviews. DATA SOURCES: Twelve recently published systematic reviews with 503 component randomized trials, published in the British Medical Journal, The Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, and The Annals of Internal Medicine before May 2012. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion if they included only RCTs. We obtained the full text for the component RCTs of the 12 systematic reviews (in English only). We extracted summary data on age, number of participants in each treatment group, and the method of allocation concealment for each RCT. DATA SYNTHESIS: Five of the 12 meta-analyses exhibited heterogeneity in age differences (I(2) > 0.30), when there should have been none. In two meta-analyses, the age of the intervention group was significantly greater than that of the control group. Inadequate allocation concealment was a statistically significant predictor of heterogeneity in one trial as observed by a metaregression. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the sample of recent meta-analyses showed that there were signs of imbalance and/or heterogeneity in ages between treatment groups, when there should have been none. Systematic reviewers might consider using the techniques described here to assess the validity of their findings.

Hydroxychloroquine effectiveness in reducing symptoms of hand osteoarthritis (HERO): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common type of arthritis, causing significant joint pain and disability. It is already a major cause of healthcare expenditure and its incidence will further increase with the ageing population. Current treatments for OA have major limitations and new analgesic treatments are needed. Synovitis is prevalent in OA and is associated with pain. Hydroxychloroquine is used in routine practice for treating synovitis in inflammatory arthritides, such as rheumatoid arthritis. We propose that treating patients with symptomatic hand OA with hydroxychloroquine will be a practical and safe treatment to reduce synovitis and pain. METHODS/DESIGN: HERO is an investigator-initiated, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. A total of 252 subjects with symptomatic hand OA will be recruited across primary and secondary care sites in the UK and randomized on a 1:1 basis to active treatment or placebo for 12 months. Daily medication dose will range from 200 to 400 mg according to ideal body weight. The primary endpoint is change in average hand pain during the previous two weeks (measured on a numerical rating scale (NRS)) between baseline and six months. Secondary endpoints include other self-reported pain, function and quality-of-life measures and radiographic structural change at 12 months. A health economics analysis will also be performed. An ultrasound substudy will be conducted to examine baseline levels of synovitis. Linear and logistic regression will be used to compare changes between groups using univariable and multivariable modelling analyses. All analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. DISCUSSION: The HERO trial is designed to examine whether hydroxychloroquine is an effective analgesic treatment for OA and whether it provides any long-term structural benefit. The ultrasound substudy will address whether baseline synovitis is a predictor of therapeutic response. This will potentially provide a new treatment for OA, which could be of particular use in the primary care setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN91859104.

Prior notification of trial participants by newsletter increased response rates: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of prenotification using a newsletter to increase questionnaire response rates within a randomized controlled trial (RCT). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An RCT set within the context of the Medical Research Council's SCOOP trial of screening older women for fracture risk. RESULTS: A subsample of SCOOP participants were randomized in equal numbers to receive a newsletter approximately 6 weeks before the follow-up questionnaire or no newsletter. Of the 1,342 participants in the newsletter group, 1,291 (96.2%) returned their 24-month follow-up questionnaire compared with 1,271 of the 1,344 participants who were not allocated to receive the newsletter (94.6%). The difference of 1.6% was statistically significant (P=0.05), with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.45 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01, 2.10). The newsletter and no newsletter groups required a similar number of reminders (OR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.73, 1.06), had a similar number with a complete primary outcome (OR 0.95, 95% CI: 0.57, 1.58), and took a similar time to respond (log rank 1.30, P=0.25). CONCLUSIONS: This study supports previous research that suggests that prenotification increases survey response rate: albeit a small absolute increase. No previous study has shown this to be so within the context of patients enrolled within an RCT. Trials that use newsletters to keep their participants informed of the study's progress should use the newsletter as a prenotification device as this will increase overall response rates.

A pragmatic multicentered randomized controlled trial of yoga for chronic low back pain: economic evaluation.

STUDY DESIGN: Multicentered randomized controlled trial with quality of life and resource use data collected. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of yoga intervention plus usual care compared with usual care alone for chronic or recurrent low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Yoga has been shown as an effective intervention for treating chronic or recurrent low back pain. However, there is little evidence on its cost-effectiveness. The data are extracted from a pragmatic, multicentered, randomized controlled trial that has been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 12-week progressive program of yoga plus usual care in patients with chronic or recurrent low back pain. METHODS: With this trial data, a cost-effectiveness analysis during the time period of 12 months from both perspectives of the UK National Health Service and the societal is presented. Main outcome measure is an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: From the perspective of the U.K. National Health Service, yoga intervention yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £13,606 per QALY. Given a willingness to pay for an additional QALY of £20,000, the probability of yoga intervention being cost-effective is 72%. From the perspective of the society, yoga intervention is a dominant treatment compared with usual care alone. This result is surrounded by fewer uncertainties-the probability of yoga being cost-effective reaches 95% at a willingness to pay for an additional QALY of £20,000. Sensitive analyses suggest the same results that yoga intervention is likely to be cost-effective in both perspectives. CONCLUSION: On the basis of this trial, 12 weekly group classes of specialized yoga are likely to be a cost-effective intervention for treating patients with chronic or recurrent low back pain.

Yoga for chronic low back pain: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies indicate that yoga may be an effective treatment for chronic or recurrent low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of yoga and usual care for chronic or recurrent low back pain. DESIGN: Parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial using computer-generated randomization conducted from April 2007 to March 2010. Outcomes were assessed by postal questionnaire. (International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register: ISRCTN 81079604) SETTING: 13 non-National Health Service premises in the United Kingdom. PATIENTS: 313 adults with chronic or recurrent low back pain. INTERVENTION: Yoga (n = 156) or usual care (n = 157). All participants received a back pain education booklet. The intervention group was offered a 12-class, gradually progressing yoga program delivered by 12 teachers over 3 months. MEASUREMENTS: Scores on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) at 3 (primary outcome), 6, and 12 (secondary outcomes) months; pain, pain self-efficacy, and general health measures at 3, 6, and 12 months (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: 93 (60%) patients offered yoga attended at least 3 of the first 6 sessions and at least 3 other sessions. The yoga group had better back function at 3, 6, and 12 months than the usual care group. The adjusted mean RMDQ score was 2.17 points (95% CI, 1.03 to 3.31 points) lower in the yoga group at 3 months, 1.48 points (CI, 0.33 to 2.62 points) lower at 6 months, and 1.57 points (CI, 0.42 to 2.71 points) lower at 12 months. The yoga and usual care groups had similar back pain and general health scores at 3, 6, and 12 months, and the yoga group had higher pain self-efficacy scores at 3 and 6 months but not at 12 months. Two of the 157 usual care participants and 12 of the 156 yoga participants reported adverse events, mostly increased pain. LIMITATION: There were missing data for the primary outcome (yoga group, n = 21; usual care group, n = 18) and differential missing data (more in the yoga group) for secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Offering a 12-week yoga program to adults with chronic or recurrent low back pain led to greater improvements in back function than did usual care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Arthritis Research UK.

Retrospective cohort study highlighted outcome reporting bias in UK publicly funded trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess outcome reporting bias and dissemination bias in trials funded by the National Health System (NHS) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) program. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective cohort study of HTA monographs and corresponding journal publications including all clinical effectiveness randomized controlled trials published as HTA monographs between 1999 and 2005 by the NHS HTA program. RESULTS: There was a higher median P-value (P=0.33, interquartile range [IQR]: 0.02-0.54) among trials without a journal publication compared with those with a journal publication (P=0.14, IQR: 0.007-0.43), although the difference was not statistically significant (Mann-Whitney U test, z=-0.70; P=0.48). A higher proportion of statistically significant findings were reported in journal articles when compared with the outcomes reported in the HTA monographs. Trials published in general medical journals tended to have smaller P-values (median: 0.05, IQR: 0.001-0.22) than those published in more specialist journals (median: 0.33 IQR: 0.008-0.58), although this result was not significant (Mann-Whitney U test, z=-1.63; P=0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Among journal-published trials, there were a greater proportion of statistically significant findings included in the journal reports compared with those in the HTA monographs.

Randomised controlled trial of food elimination diet based on IgG antibodies for the prevention of migraine like headaches.

BACKGROUND: Research suggests that food intolerance may be a precipitating factor for migraine like headaches. AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of the ELISA (Enzyme Linked Immuno-Sorbent Assay) Test and subsequent dietary elimination advice for the prevention of migraine like headaches. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Community based volunteers in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Volunteers who met the inclusion criteria for migraine like headaches and had one or more food intolerance were included in the study. Participants received either a true diet (n = 84) or a sham diet (n = 83) sheet. Participants were advised to remove the intolerant foods from their diet for 12 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of headache days over a 12 week period (item A MIDAS questionnaire). Other measures includes the total MIDAS score and total HIT-6 score. RESULTS: The results indicated a small decrease in the number of migraine like headaches over 12 weeks, although this difference was not statistically significant (IRR 1.15 95% CI 0.94 to 1.41, p = 0.18). At the 4 week assessment, use of the ELISA test with subsequent diet elimination advice significantly reduced the number of migraine like headaches (IRR 1.23 95%CI 1.01 to 1.50, p = 0.04). The disability and impact on daily life of migraines were not significantly different between the true and sham diet groups. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the ELISA test with subsequent diet elimination advice did not reduce the disability or impact on daily life of migraine like headaches or the number of migraine like headaches at 12 weeks but it did significantly reduce the number of migraine like headaches at 4 weeks.

Electronic reminders did not improve postal questionnaire response rates or response times: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of electronic reminders (ERs) to improve the response rates and time to response of postal questionnaires in a health research setting. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) was nested within a multicenter RCT of yoga for lower back pain. Participants who provided an electronic mail address and/or mobile phone number were randomized to receive an ER or no reminder (controls) on the day they were due to receive a follow-up questionnaire. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five participants (32 males and 93 females) mean age 46 (standard deviation: 11, range: 20-65) were randomized to ER (n=62) or controls (n=63). Overall 85.6% of participants returned postal questionnaires (87.1% ER group and 84.1% from controls). No significant differences were found between the two groups for response rate (difference between groups=3.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI]=-10, 16; P=0.64) or time to response after adjusting for age, gender, and treatment allocation (χ(2) ([3df])=7.10; P=0.07). CONCLUSION: In the present RCT, we found little evidence for the effectiveness of ERs to increase response rates or time to respond for the return of questionnaires in this study population group.

A controlled trial of envelope colour for increasing response rates in older women.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Postal questionnaires are widely used in health research to provide measurable outcomes in areas such as quality of life. Participants who fail to return postal questionnaires can introduce non-response bias. Previous studies within populations over the age of 65 years have shown that response rates amongst older people can be 60% or less. The current study sought to investigate whether envelope colour affected response rates in a study about the effectiveness of screening older women for osteoporosis. METHODS: A total of 2803 eligible female participants aged between 70 and 85 were sent an invitation pack from their GP practice. The invitation was either in a brown or white envelope and contained a matching pre-paid reply envelope. A study questionnaire was also sent out in brown or white envelopes 1 week after consenting to participate in the trial. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 78%. There was little evidence of an effect of envelope colour on response to the invitation to participate in the trial (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87-1.24). Similarly, there was no influence of envelope colour on the number of participants returning their questionnaires (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.60-1.63). There was weak evidence of an effect of envelope colour on the response rates of the consent process (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-1.00). When we updated a recent meta-analysis with the results of this study, there was a non-statistically- significant trend for greater response rates with brown envelopes compared with white envelopes (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.86-1.64, I2=92%). However, the results where influenced by one study and when this study was excluded the pooled estimate was 0.98 (95% CI 0.89-1.08, I2=0%). CONCLUSION: This study found no evidence to suggest envelope colour has an effect on response to participate in a trial or questionnaire returns. There is weak evidence to suggest envelope colour may affect consent into a trial.

Screening and case finding for depression in offender populations: a systematic review of diagnostic properties.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of depression in offender populations is particularly difficult for health professions because of the many vulnerable complex problems associated with this population. As offender populations represent an 'at risk population', one feasible approach is the use of brief standardised mood assessments that can be either self-completed or completed by a non-specialist. AIMS: To review the diagnostic accuracy of brief psychometric instruments to identify depression in offender populations. METHOD: The authors searched five electronic databases from inception to March 2009 and examined reference lists to identify the relevant literature. The authors included studies comparing the accuracy of any brief psychometric instrument to identify depression in offender populations with a standardised diagnostic interview conducted according to internationally recognised criteria. Two reviewers independently reviewed each article to assess inclusion, extract relevant study characteristics and data. RESULTS: In total, thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Instruments validated in offender populations included both general depression questionnaires as well as specific measures that had been developed for use in offender populations. The most frequently validated instruments were the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) and the Referral Decision Scale (RDS). CONCLUSIONS: A number of different tools were identified in the review which could perhaps serve as a benchmark for the identification of depression in offender populations.

Assessing the impact of attrition in randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: A survey of randomized controlled trials found that almost a quarter of trials had more than 10% of responses missing for the primary outcome. There are a number of ways in which data could be missing: the subject is unable to provide it, or they withdraw, or become lost to follow-up. Such attrition means that balance in baseline characteristics for those randomized may not be maintained in the subsample who has outcome data. For individual trials, if the attrition is systematic and linked to outcome, then this will result in biased estimates of the overall effect. It then follows that if such trials are combined in a meta-analysis, it will result in a biased estimate of the overall effect and be misleading. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of attrition on baseline imbalance within individual trials and across multiple trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In this article, we used individual patient data from a convenience sample of 10 trials evaluating interventions for the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. Meta-analyses using the mean difference at baseline between the trial arms were carried out using individual patient data from these trials. The analyses were first carried out using all randomized participants and secondly only including participants with outcome data on the quality-of-life score. Meta-regression was carried out to evaluate whether the level of baseline imbalance was associated with the level of attrition. RESULTS: The overall attrition rates for the quality-of-life score ranged between 4% and 28% of the total randomized patients. All trials showed some level of differential attrition between the treatment arms, ranging from 1% to 14%. Attrition within the control group ranged from 3% to 25% and within the intervention group, it ranged from 0% to 31%. For individual trials, there was no indication that attrition altered the results in favor of either the treatment or the control. Forest plots highlighted that the attrition had some impact on the baseline imbalance for the primary outcome score as more heterogeneity was introduced (I-squared value of 0.4% for the initial data set vs. I-squared value of 16.9% for the analyzed data set). However, the standardized mean difference increased only slightly (from 0.01 to 0.03 with 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.05, 0.10). Meta-regression showed little or no evidence of a significant dose-response relationship between the level of attrition and the baseline imbalance (coefficient 0.73, 95% CI: -0.81, 2.28). CONCLUSION: Although, in theory, attrition can introduce selection bias in randomized trials, we did not find sufficient evidence to support this claim in our convenience sample of trials. However, the number of trials included was relatively small, which may have led to small but important differences in outcomes being missed. In addition, only 2 of 10 trials included had attrition levels greater than 15% suggesting a low level of potential bias. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews should always consider the impact of attrition on baseline imbalances and where possible any baseline imbalances in the analyzed data set and their impact on the outcomes reported.