Childhood obesity intervention studies: A narrative review and guide for investigators, authors, editors, reviewers, journalists, and readers to guard against exaggerated effectiveness claims.

Being able to draw accurate conclusions from childhood obesity trials is important to make advances in reversing the obesity epidemic. However, obesity research sometimes is not conducted or reported to appropriate scientific standards. To constructively draw attention to this issue, we present 10 errors that are commonly committed, illustrate each error with examples from the childhood obesity literature, and follow with suggestions on how to avoid these errors. These errors are as follows: using self-reported outcomes and teaching to the test; foregoing control groups and risking regression to the mean creating differences over time; changing the goal posts; ignoring clustering in studies that randomize groups of children; following the forking paths, subsetting, p-hacking, and data dredging; basing conclusions on tests for significant differences from baseline; equating "no statistically significant difference" with "equally effective"; ignoring intervention study results in favor of observational analyses; using one-sided testing for statistical significance; and stating that effects are clinically significant even though they are not statistically significant. We hope that compiling these errors in one article will serve as the beginning of a checklist to support fidelity in conducting, analyzing, and reporting childhood obesity research.

One evidence base; three stories: do opioids relieve chronic breathlessness?

The efficacy of low-dose systemic opioids for chronic breathlessness was questioned by the recent Cochrane review by Barnes et al We examined the reasons for this conflicting finding and re-evaluated the efficacy of systemic opioids. Compared with previous meta-analyses, Barnes et al reported a smaller effect and lower precision, but did not account for matched data of crossover trials (11/12 included trials) and added a risk-of-bias criterion (sample size). When re-analysed to account for crossover data, opioids decreased breathlessness (standardised mean differences -0.32; -0.18 to -0.47; I2=44.8%) representing a clinically meaningful reduction of 0.8 points (0-10 numerical rating scale), consistent across meta-analyses.

Exposure to nature gardens has time-dependent associations with mood improvements for people with mid- and late-stage dementia: Innovative practice.

Exposure to green space and nature has a potential role to play in the care of people with dementia, with possible benefits including improved mood and slower disease progression. In this observational study at a dementia care facility in the UK, we used carer-assessed measures to evaluate change in mood of residents with mid- to late-stage dementia following exposure to a nature garden. We found that exposure to nature was associated with a beneficial change in patient mood. There was a non-linear relationship between time spent outdoors and mood outcome. Improvements in patient mood were associated with relatively short duration exposures to nature, and no additional measureable increases in mood were found with exposures beyond 80-90 minutes duration. Whilst further investigation is required before causality can be determined, these results raise important questions for policy about the integration of outdoor space into the design of dementia care facilities and programmes.

Psychometric validation of the needs assessment tool: progressive disease in interstitial lung disease.

The inter-rater/test-retest reliability and construct validity of a palliative care needs assessment tool in interstitial lung disease (NAT:PD-ILD) were tested using NAT:PD-ILD-guided video-recorded consultations, and NAT:PD-ILD-guided consultations, and patient and carer-report outcomes (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ)-ILD, Carer Strain Index (CSI)/Carer Support Needs Assessment Tool (CSNAT)). 11/16 items reached at least fair inter-rater agreement; 5 items reached at least moderate test-retest agreement. 4/6 patient constructs demonstrated agreement with SGRQ-I scores (Kendall's tau-b, 0.24-20.36; P<0.05). 4/7 carer constructs agreed with the CSI/CSNAT items (kappa, 0.23-20.53). The NAT:PD-ILD is reliable and valid. Clinical effectiveness and implementation are to be evaluated.

Breathlessness and presentation to the emergency department: a survey and clinical record review.

BACKGROUND: Breathlessness is a frequently occurring symptom of cardiorespiratory conditions and is a common cause of emergency department presentation. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of acute-on-chronic breathlessness as a cause for presentation to the major emergencies area of the emergency department. METHODS: A prospective patient self-report survey and clinical record review of consecutive attendees to the major emergencies area of the emergency department in a single tertiary hospital between 12/5/14 and 29/5/14 was conducted. Eligible patients were clinically stable and had mental capacity to provide data. RESULTS: There were 2,041 presentations during the study period, of whom 1,345 (66%) were eligible. There was a 90% survey response rate (1,212/1,345); 424/1,212 (35%) self-reported breathlessness most days over the past month of whom 245 gave breathlessness as a reason for this presentation. Therefore, the prevalence of acute-on-chronic breathlessness as a reason to present to the major emergencies area was 20.2% (245/1,212, 95% CI 17.9% to 22.5%). During this period there were 4,692 major and minor presentations; breathlessness was therefore a cause of at least 5.2% (245/4,692, 95% CI 4.6 to 5.9%) of all emergency department presentations. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that one in five ambulance presentations to the ED were due to acute-on-chronic breathlessness. Most patients had non-malignant underlying conditions, had experienced considerable breathlessness for an extended period, had discussed breathlessness with their GP and presented out of daytime hours. Others were often involved in their decision to present. This represents clinically significant burden for patients, their family carers and the emergency health services.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in UK primary care (CADET): a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care is effective for depression management in the USA. There is little UK evidence on its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care compared with usual care in the management of patients with moderate to severe depression. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: UK primary care practices (n = 51) in three UK primary care districts. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 581 adults aged ≥ 18 years in general practice with a current International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition depressive episode, excluding acutely suicidal people, those with psychosis, bipolar disorder or low mood associated with bereavement, those whose primary presentation was substance abuse and those receiving psychological treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Collaborative care: 14 weeks of 6-12 telephone contacts by care managers; mental health specialist supervision, including depression education, medication management, behavioural activation, relapse prevention and primary care liaison. Usual care was general practitioner standard practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Blinded researchers collected depression [Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)], anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder-7) and quality of life (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions three-level version), Short Form questionnaire-36 items) outcomes at 4, 12 and 36 months, satisfaction (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8) outcomes at 4 months and treatment and service use costs at 12 months. RESULTS: In total, 276 and 305 participants were randomised to collaborative care and usual care respectively. Collaborative care participants had a mean depression score that was 1.33 PHQ-9 points lower [n = 230; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 2.31; p = 0.009] than that of participants in usual care at 4 months and 1.36 PHQ-9 points lower (n = 275; 95% CI 0.07 to 2.64; p = 0.04) at 12 months after adjustment for baseline depression (effect size 0.28, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.52; odds ratio for recovery 1.88, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.75; number needed to treat 6.5). Quality of mental health but not physical health was significantly better for collaborative care at 4 months but not at 12 months. There was no difference for anxiety. Participants receiving collaborative care were significantly more satisfied with treatment. Differences between groups had disappeared at 36 months. Collaborative care had a mean cost of £272.50 per participant with similar health and social care service use between collaborative care and usual care. Collaborative care offered a mean incremental gain of 0.02 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.06) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 12 months at a mean incremental cost of £270.72 (95% CI -£202.98 to £886.04) and had an estimated mean cost per QALY of £14,248, which is below current UK willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses including informal care costs indicated that collaborative care is expected to be less costly and more effective. The amount of participant behavioural activation was the only effect mediator. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative care improves depression up to 12 months after initiation of the intervention, is preferred by patients over usual care, offers health gains at a relatively low cost, is cost-effective compared with usual care and is mediated by patient activation. Supervision was by expert clinicians and of short duration and more intensive therapy may have improved outcomes. In addition, one participant requiring inpatient treatment incurred very significant costs and substantially inflated our cost per QALY estimate. Future work should test enhanced intervention content not collaborative care per se. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN32829227. FUNDING: This project was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) (G0701013) and managed by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) on behalf of the MRC-NIHR partnership.

Breathlessness in Elderly Adults During the Last Year of Life Sufficient to Restrict Activity: Prevalence, Pattern, and Associated Factors.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate relationships between age, clinical characteristics, and breathlessness sufficient to have people spend at least half a day a month in bed or to cut down on their usual activities (restricting breathlessness) during the last year of life. DESIGN: Secondary data analysis. SETTING: General community. PARTICIPANTS: Nondisabled persons aged 70 and older (N=754). MEASUREMENTS: Monthly telephone interviews were conducted to determine the occurrence of restricting breathlessness. The primary outcome was percentage of months with restricting breathlessness reported during the last year of life. RESULTS: Data regarding breathlessness were available for 548 of 589 (93.0%) participants who died (mean age 86.7, range 71-106; 38.8% male) between enrollment (March 1998 to October 1999) and June 2013; 311 of these (56.8%) reported restricting breathlessness at some point during the last year of life, but none reported it every month. Frequency increased in the months closer to death, irrespective of cause. Restricting breathlessness was associated with anxiety (0.25 percentage points greater in months with breathlessness per percentage point months reported anxiety, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.16-0.34, P<.001), depression (0.14, 95% CI=0.05-0.24, P=.003), and mobility problems (0.07, 0.03-0.1, P<.001). Percentage months of restricting breathlessness was greater if chronic lung disease was noted at the most-recent comprehensive assessment (6.62 percentage points, 95% CI=4.31-8.94, P<.001), heart failure (3.34 percentage points, 95% CI=0.71-5.97, P=.01), and ex-smoker status (3.01 percentage points, 95% CI=0.94-5.07, P=.004) but decreased with older age (-0.19 percentage points, 95% CI=-0.37 to -0.02, P=.03). CONCLUSION: Restricting breathlessness increased in this elderly population in the months preceding death from any cause. Breathlessness should be assessed and managed in the context of poor prognosis.

Best (but oft forgotten) practices: testing for treatment effects in randomized trials by separate analyses of changes from baseline in each group is a misleading approach.

Researchers often analyze randomized trials and other comparative studies by separate analysis of changes from baseline in each parallel group. This may be the only analysis presented or it may be in addition to the direct comparison of allocated groups. We illustrate this by reference to 3 recently published nutritional trials. We show why this method of analysis may be highly misleading and may produce type I errors far greater than the 5% that we expect. We recommend direct comparison of means between groups with the use of baseline as a covariate if required.

Validation of the VEINES-QOL quality of life instrument in venous leg ulcers: repeatability and validity study embedded in a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: VEINES-QOL/Sym is a disease-specific quality of life instrument for use in venous diseases of the leg. Its relative scoring system precludes comparisons between studies. There were very few venous leg ulcer patients in the validation samples. We report a validation study for venous leg ulcers and develop a scoring system which enables comparison between studies. METHODS: Four hundred fifty-one participants in the VenUS IV trial of the management of venous leg ulcers were asked to complete a VEINES-QOL questionnaire at recruitment, along with SF-12, pain, and other aspects of quality of life. VEINES-QOL was repeated after two weeks and after 4 months. Healing of ulcers was confirmed by blind assessment of digital photographs. Three scoring systems for VEINES-QOL were compared. RESULTS: No floor or ceiling effects were observed for VEINES-QOL items, item-item correlations were weak to moderate, item-score correlations were moderate. Internal reliability was good. The VEINES-Sym subscale was confirmed by factor analysis. Test-retest reliability was satisfactory for the scale scores; individual items showed moderate to good agreement. Relationships with SF-12, pain, and the quality items confirmed construct validity. Participants whose ulcers had healed showed greater mean increase in scores than did those yet to heal, though they continued to report leg problems. An intrinsic scoring method appeared superior to the original relative method. CONCLUSIONS: VEINES-QOL was suitable for use in the study of venous leg ulcers. The intrinsic scoring method should be adopted, to facilitate comparisons between studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: VenUS IV is registered with the ISRCTN register, number ISRCTN49373072 .

MABGEL 1: first phase 1 trial of the anti-HIV-1 monoclonal antibodies 2F5, 4E10 and 2G12 as a vaginal microbicide.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) which potently neutralize a broad range of HIV isolates are potential microbicide candidates. To date, topical application of mAbs in humans and their stability in vaginal secretions has not been studied. OBJECTIVES: To assess the pharmacokinetics and safety of the mAbs 2F5, 4E10 and 2G12 when applied vaginally in women. DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1 trial. METHODS: Twenty-eight healthy, sexually abstinent women administered 2.5 g of gel daily for 12 days containing either 10 or 20 mg/g of each mAb (MABGEL) or placebo. Main clinical evaluations and sampling occurred at baseline, 1, 8, and 24 hours post-1st dose and 12 and 36 hours post-12th dose. RESULTS: After adjustment for dilution factors, median levels of 2F5, 4E10 and 2G12 in vaginal secretions at 1 hour post high-dose MABGEL were 7.74, 5.28 and 7.48 mg/ml respectively. Levels of 2F5 and 4E10 declined exponentially thereafter with similar estimated half-lives (4.6 and 4.3 hours). In contrast, 2G12 levels declined more rapidly in the first 8 hours, with an estimated half-life of 1.4 hours during this period. There was no evidence of systemic absorption. There were no significant differences in local or systemic adverse event rates or vaginal flora changes (by qPCR) between active and placebo gel arms. Whilst at least 1 adverse event was recorded in 96% of participants, 95% were mild and none were serious. CONCLUSIONS: Vaginal application of 50 mg of each mAb daily was safe over a 12 day period. Median mAb concentrations detected at 8 hours post dose were potentially sufficient to block HIV transmission.2G12 exhibited more rapid elimination from the human vagina than 4E10 and 2F5, likely due to poor stability of 2G12 in acidic human vaginal secretions. Further research is needed to develop mAb-based vaginal microbicides and delivery systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 64808733 UK CRN Portfolio 6470.

VenUS IV (Venous leg Ulcer Study IV) - compression hosiery compared with compression bandaging in the treatment of venous leg ulcers: a randomised controlled trial, mixed-treatment comparison and decision-analytic model.

BACKGROUND: Compression is an effective and recommended treatment for venous leg ulcers. Although the four-layer bandage (4LB) is regarded as the gold standard compression system, it is recognised that the amount of compression delivered might be compromised by poor application technique. Also the bulky nature of the bandages might reduce ankle or leg mobility and make the wearing of shoes difficult. Two-layer compression hosiery systems are now available for the treatment of venous leg ulcers. Two-layer hosiery (HH) may be advantageous, as it has reduced bulk, which might enhance ankle or leg mobility and patient adherence. Some patients can also remove and reapply two-layer hosiery, which may encourage self-management and could reduce costs. However, little robust evidence exists about the effectiveness of two-layer hosiery for ulcer healing and no previous trials have compared two-layer hosiery delivering 'high' compression with the 4LB. OBJECTIVES: Part I To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HH and 4LB in terms of time to complete healing of venous leg ulcers. Part II To synthesise the relative effectiveness evidence (for ulcer healing) of high-compression treatments for venous leg ulcers using a mixed-treatment comparison (MTC). Part III To construct a decision-analytic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of high-compression treatments for venous leg ulcers. DESIGN: Part I A multicentred, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel, open randomised controlled trial (RCT) with an economic evaluation. Part II MTC using all relevant RCT data - including Venous leg Ulcer Study IV (VenUS IV). Part III A decision-analytic Markov model. SETTINGS: Part I Community nurse teams or services, general practitioner practices, leg ulcer clinics, tissue viability clinics or services and wound clinics within England and Northern Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Part I Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a venous leg ulcer, who were willing and able to tolerate high compression. INTERVENTIONS: Part I Participants in the intervention group received HH. The control group received the 4LB, which was applied according to standard practice. Both treatments are designed to deliver 40 mmHg of compression at the ankle. Part II and III All relevant high-compression treatments including HH, the 4LB and the two-layer bandage (2LB). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Part I The primary outcome measure was time to healing of the reference ulcer (blinded assessment). Part II Time to ulcer healing. Part III Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs. RESULTS: Part I A total of 457 participants were recruited. There was no evidence of a difference in time to healing of the reference ulcer between groups in an adjusted analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.25; p = 0.96]. Time to ulcer recurrence was significantly shorter in the 4LB group (HR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.94; p = 0.026). In terms of cost-effectiveness, using QALYs as the measure of benefit, HH had a > 95% probability of being the most cost-effective treatment based on the within-trial analysis. Part II The MTC suggests that the 2LB has the highest probability of ulcer healing compared with other high-compression treatments. However, this evidence is categorised as low to very low quality. Part III Results suggested that the 2LB had the highest probability of being the most cost-effective high-compression treatment for venous leg ulcers. CONCLUSIONS: Trial data from VenUS IV found no evidence of a difference in venous ulcer healing between HH and the 4LB. HH may reduce ulcer recurrence rates compared with the 4LB and be a cost-effective treatment. When all available high-compression treatments were considered, the 2LB had the highest probability of being clinically effective and cost-effective. However, the underpinning evidence was sparse and more research is needed. Further research should thus focus on establishing, in a high-quality trial, the effectiveness of this compression system in particular. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49373072. 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. 18, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for depression in UK primary care: economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial (CADET).

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care is an effective treatment for the management of depression but evidence on its cost-effectiveness in the UK is lacking. AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting. METHODS: An economic evaluation alongside a multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial comparing collaborative care with usual primary care for adults with depression (n = 581). Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated over a 12-month follow-up, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services (i.e. Third Party Payer). Sensitivity analyses are reported, and uncertainty is presented using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) and the cost-effectiveness plane. RESULTS: The collaborative care intervention had a mean cost of £272.50 per participant. Health and social care service use, excluding collaborative care, indicated a similar profile of resource use between collaborative care and usual care participants. Collaborative care offered a mean incremental gain of 0.02 (95% CI: -0.02, 0.06) quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months, at a mean incremental cost of £270.72 (95% CI: -202.98, 886.04), and resulted in an estimated mean cost per QALY of £14,248. Where costs associated with informal care are considered in sensitivity analyses collaborative care is expected to be less costly and more effective, thereby dominating treatment as usual. CONCLUSION: Collaborative care offers health gains at a relatively low cost, and is cost-effective compared with usual care against a decision-maker willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Results here support the commissioning of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting.