Operational complexities in international clinical trials: a systematic review of challenges and proposed solutions.

OBJECTIVE: International trials can be challenging to operationalise due to incompatibilities between country-specific policies and infrastructures. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the operational complexities of conducting international trials and identify potential solutions for overcoming them. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase and Health Management Information Consortium were searched from 2006 to 30 January 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All studies reporting operational challenges (eg, site selection, trial management, intervention management, data management) of conducting international trials were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Search results were independently screened by at least two reviewers and data were extracted into a proforma. RESULTS: 38 studies (35 RCTs, 2 reports and 1 qualitative study) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The median sample size was 1202 (IQR 332-4056) and median number of sites was 40 (IQR 13-78). 88.6% of studies had an academic sponsor and 80% were funded through government sources. Operational complexities were particularly reported during trial set-up due to lack of harmonisation in regulatory approvals and in relation to sponsorship structure, with associated budgetary impacts. Additional challenges included site selection, staff training, lengthy contract negotiations, site monitoring, communication, trial oversight, recruitment, data management, drug procurement and distribution, pharmacy involvement and biospecimen processing and transport. CONCLUSIONS: International collaborative trials are valuable in cases where recruitment may be difficult, diversifying participation and applicability. However, multiple operational and regulatory challenges are encountered when implementing a trial in multiple countries. Careful planning and communication between trials units and investigators, with an emphasis on establishing adequately resourced cross-border sponsorship structures and regulatory approvals, may help to overcome these barriers and realise the benefits of the approach. OPEN SCIENCE FRAMEWORK REGISTRATION NUMBER: osf-registrations-yvtjb-v1.

Single-incision sling operations for urinary incontinence in women.

BACKGROUND: Stress urinary incontinence imposes a significant health and economic burden on individuals and society. Single-incision slings are a minimally-invasive treatment option for stress urinary incontinence. They involve passing a short synthetic device through the anterior vaginal wall to support the mid-urethra. The use of polypropylene mesh in urogynaecology, including mid-urethral slings, is restricted in many countries. This is a review update (previous search date 2012). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of single-incision sling operations for treating urinary incontinence in women, and to summarise the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, and two trials registers. We handsearched journals, conference proceedings, and reference lists of relevant articles to 20 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in women with stress (or stress-predominant mixed) urinary incontinence in which at least one, but not all, trial arms included a single-incision sling. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcome was subjective cure or improvement of urinary incontinence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 62 studies with a total of 8051 women in this review. We did not identify any studies comparing single-incision slings to no treatment, conservative treatment, colposuspension, or laparoscopic procedures. We assessed most studies as being at low or unclear risk of bias, with five studies at high risk of bias for outcome assessment. Sixteen trials used TVT-Secur, a single-incision sling withdrawn from the market in 2013. The primary analysis in this review excludes trials using TVT-Secur. We report separate analyses for these trials, which did not substantially alter the effect estimates. We identified two cost-effectiveness analyses and one cost-minimisation analysis. Single-incision sling versus autologous fascial sling One study (70 women) compared single-incision slings to autologous fascial slings. It is uncertain if single-incision slings have any effect on risk of dyspareunia (painful sex) or mesh exposure, extrusion or erosion compared with autologous fascial slings. Subjective cure or improvement of urinary incontinence at 12 months, patient-reported pain at 24 months or longer, number of women with urinary retention, quality of life at 12 months and the number of women requiring repeat continence surgery or sling revision were not reported for this comparison. Single-incision sling versus retropubic sling Ten studies compared single-incision slings to retropubic slings. There may be little to no difference between single-incision slings and retropubic slings in subjective cure or improvement of incontinence at 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.07; 2 trials, 297 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether single-incision slings increase the risk of mesh exposure, extrusion or erosion compared with retropubic minimally-invasive slings; the wide confidence interval is consistent with both benefit and harm (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.24 to 9.82; 3 trials, 267 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether single-incision slings lead to fewer women having postoperative urinary retention compared with retropubic slings; the wide confidence interval is consistent with possible benefit and harm (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.84; 2 trials, 209 women; low-certainty evidence). The effect of single-incision slings on the risk of repeat continence surgery or mesh revision compared with retropubic slings is uncertain (RR 4.19, 95% CI 0.31 to 57.28; 2 trials, 182 women; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported quality of life, but not in a suitable format for analysis. Patient-reported pain at more than 24 months and the number of women with dyspareunia were not reported for this comparison. We downgraded the evidence due to concerns about risks of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. Single-incision sling versus transobturator sling Fifty-one studies compared single-incision slings to transobturator slings. The evidence ranged from high to low certainty. There is no evidence of a difference in subjective cure or improvement of incontinence at 12 months when comparing single-incision slings with transobturator slings (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03; 17 trials, 2359 women; high-certainty evidence). Single-incision slings probably have a reduced risk of patient-reported pain at 24 months post-surgery compared with transobturator slings (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.68; 2 trials, 250 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of single-incision slings on the risk of dyspareunia is uncertain compared with transobturator slings, as the wide confidence interval is consistent with possible benefit and possible harm (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.48; 8 trials, 810 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There are a similar number of mesh exposures, extrusions or erosions with single-incision slings compared with transobturator slings (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.96; 16 trials, 2378 women; high-certainty evidence). Single-incision slings probably result in similar or reduced cases of postoperative urinary retention compared with transobturator slings (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.97; 23 trials, 2891 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women with single-incision slings may have lower quality of life at 12 months compared to transobturator slings (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.39; 8 trials, 698 women; low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether single-incision slings lead to slightly more women requiring repeat continence surgery or mesh revision compared with transobturator slings (95% CI consistent with possible benefit and harm; RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.16; 13 trials, 1460 women; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the evidence due to indirectness, imprecision and risks of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Single-incision sling operations have been extensively researched in randomised controlled trials. They may be as effective as retropubic slings and are as effective as transobturator slings for subjective cure or improvement of stress urinary incontinence at 12 months. It is uncertain if single-incision slings lead to better or worse rates of subjective cure or improvement compared with autologous fascial slings. There are still uncertainties regarding adverse events and longer-term outcomes. Therefore, longer-term data are needed to clarify the safety and long-term effectiveness of single-incision slings compared to other mid-urethral slings.

Oral anticholinergic drugs versus placebo or no treatment for managing overactive bladder syndrome in adults.

BACKGROUND: Around 16% of adults have symptoms of overactive bladder (OAB; urgency with frequency and/or urge incontinence), with prevalence increasing with age. Anticholinergic drugs are commonly used to treat this condition. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of anticholinergic drugs compared with placebo or no treatment for treating overactive bladder syndrome in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 14 January 2020), and the reference lists of relevant articles. We updated this search on 3 May 2022, but these results have not yet been fully incorporated. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials in adults with overactive bladder syndrome that compared an anticholinergic drug alone with placebo treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and extracted data from the included studies, including an assessment of the risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence using the GRADE approach. We processed data as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. MAIN RESULTS: We included 104 studies, 71 of which were new or updated for this version of the review. Although 12 studies did not report the number of participants, there were 47,106 people in the remainder of the included studies. The majority of the studies had insufficient information to allow judgement of risk of bias and we judged them to be unclear for all domains. Nine anticholinergic drugs were included in these studies: darifenacin; fesoterodine; imidafenacin; oxybutynin; propantheline; propiverine; solifenacin; tolterodine and trospium. No studies were found that compared anticholinergic drugs to no treatment. At the end of the treatment period, anticholinergics may slightly increase condition-specific quality of life (mean difference (MD) 4.41 lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.28 lower to 3.54 lower (scale range -100 to 0); 12 studies, 6804 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticholinergics are probably better than placebo in terms of patient perception of cure or improvement (risk ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.66; 9 studies, 8457 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and the mean number of urgency episodes per 24-hour period (MD 0.85 lower, 95% CI 1.03 lower to 0.67 lower; 23 studies, 16,875 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, anticholinergics may result in an increase in dry mouth adverse events (RR 3.50, 95% CI 3.26 to 3.75; 66 studies, 38,368 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may result in an increased risk of urinary retention (RR 3.52, 95% CI 2.04 to 6.08; 17 studies, 7862 participants; low-certainty evidence). Taking anticholinergics may be more likely to lead to participants withdrawing from the studies due to adverse events (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.56; 61 studies, 36,943 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, taking anticholinergics probably reduces the mean number of micturitions per 24-hour period compared to placebo (MD 0.85 lower, 95% CI 0.98 lower to 0.73 lower; 30 studies, 19,395 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The use of anticholinergic drugs by people with overactive bladder syndrome results in important but modest improvements in symptoms compared with placebo treatment. In addition, recent studies suggest that this is generally associated with only modest improvement in quality of life. Adverse effects were higher with all anticholinergics compared with placebo. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were also higher for all anticholinergics except tolterodine. It is not known whether any benefits of anticholinergics are sustained during long-term treatment or after treatment stops.

Clinical and cost effectiveness of endoscopic bipolar radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of malignant biliary obstruction: a systematic review.

Background: Early evidence suggests that using radiofrequency ablation as an adjunct to standard care (i.e. endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with stenting) may improve outcomes in patients with malignant biliary obstruction. Objectives: To assess the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and potential risks of endoscopic bipolar radiofrequency ablation for malignant biliary obstruction, and the value of future research. Data sources: Seven bibliographic databases, three websites and seven trials registers were searched from 2008 until 21 January 2021. Review methods: The study inclusion criteria were as follows: patients with biliary obstruction caused by any form of unresectable malignancy; the intervention was reported as an endoscopic biliary radiofrequency ablation to ablate malignant tissue that obstructs the bile or pancreatic ducts, either to fit a stent (primary radiofrequency ablation) or to clear an obstructed stent (secondary radiofrequency ablation); the primary outcomes were survival, quality of life or procedure-related adverse events; and the study design was a controlled study, an observational study or a case report. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane tools. The primary analysis was meta-analysis of the hazard ratio of mortality. Subgroup analyses were planned according to the type of probe, the type of stent (i.e. metal or plastic) and cancer type. A de novo Markov model was developed to model cost and quality-of-life outcomes associated with radiofrequency ablation in patients with primary advanced bile duct cancer. Insufficient data were available for pancreatic cancer and secondary bile duct cancer. An NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was adopted for the analysis. A probabilistic analysis was conducted to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for radiofrequency ablation and the probability that radiofrequency ablation was cost-effective at different thresholds. The population expected value of perfect information was estimated in total and for the effectiveness parameters. Results: Sixty-eight studies (1742 patients) were included in the systematic review. Four studies (336 participants) were combined in a meta-analysis, which showed that the pooled hazard ratio for mortality following primary radiofrequency ablation compared with a stent-only control was 0.34 (95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.55). Little evidence relating to the impact on quality of life was found. There was no evidence to suggest an increased risk of cholangitis or pancreatitis, but radiofrequency ablation may be associated with an increase in cholecystitis. The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis were that the costs of radiofrequency ablation was £2659 and radiofrequency ablation produced 0.18 quality-adjusted life-years, which was more than no radiofrequency ablation on average. With an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £14,392 per quality-adjusted life-year, radiofrequency ablation was likely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year across most scenario analyses, with moderate uncertainty. The source of the vast majority of decision uncertainty lay in the effect of radiofrequency ablation on stent patency. Limitations: Only 6 of 18 comparative studies contributed to the survival meta-analysis, and few data were found concerning secondary radiofrequency ablation. The economic model and cost-effectiveness meta-analysis required simplification because of data limitations. Inconsistencies in standard reporting and study design were noted. Conclusions: Primary radiofrequency ablation increases survival and is likely to be cost-effective. The evidence for the impact of secondary radiofrequency ablation on survival and of quality of life is limited. There was a lack of robust clinical effectiveness data and, therefore, more information is needed for this indication. Future work: Future work investigating radiofrequency ablation must collect quality-of-life data. High-quality randomised controlled trials in secondary radiofrequency ablation are needed, with appropriate outcomes recorded. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020170233. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The bile and pancreatic ducts transport fluids to the intestines to help people digest their food properly. Some types of cancer can cause these ducts to become totally or partially blocked. We wanted to know if endoscopic radiofrequency ablation is safe and works well to treat people who have one of these blockages that cannot be removed by surgery. Radiofrequency ablation burns away a blockage by hitting it with radio waves. Endoscopic means that the radio waves are directed to the blockage using a thin, tube-like wire with a camera at the end. During radiofrequency ablation, a person might have a small tube called a stent put into their bile or pancreatic duct to keep it open or to replace an already blocked stent.

We searched for research studies that looked at (1) whether or not radiofrequency ablation was able to remove blockages from the ducts, (2) if radiofrequency ablation allowed people to live longer, (3) if patients had a better quality of life after radiofrequency ablation, (4) if radiofrequency ablation caused any side effects and (5) how much it costs to treat people with radiofrequency ablation.

We found that treatment with radiofrequency ablation before giving a person a stent helped them to live a little longer with their cancer. We did not find any evidence that radiofrequency ablation increased pain or swelling in the bile duct or pancreatic duct. Radiofrequency ablation might cause more swelling in the gall bladder than having a stent without radiofrequency ablation, but there was not enough research available for us to be certain of this.

Radiofrequency ablation before inserting a stent could be a safe option to add to treatment of bile and pancreatic duct blockages caused by cancer. There is limited research evidence and so we are unable to recommend radiofrequency ablation as a treatment for standard clinical practice.

Experiences of Non-Pharmaceutical Primary Care Interventions for Common Mental Health Disorders in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Groups: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.

Common mental health disorders (CMDs) disproportionately affect people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. Non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as 'social prescribing' and new models of care and clinical practice, are becoming increasingly prevalent in primary care. However, little is known about how these interventions work and their impact on socioeconomic inequalities in health. Focusing on people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, this systematic review aims to: (1) explore the mechanisms by which non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions impact CMD-related health outcomes and inequalities; (2) identify the barriers to, and facilitators of, their implementation in primary care. This study is a systematic review of qualitative studies. Six bibliographic databases were searched (Medline, ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo and Scopus) and additional grey literature sources were screened. The included studies were thematically analysed. Twenty-two studies were included, and three themes were identified: (1) agency; (2) social connections; (3) socioeconomic environment. The interventions were experienced as being positive for mental health when people felt a sense of agency and social connection. The barriers to effectiveness and engagement included socioeconomic deprivation and underfunding of community sector organisations. If non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions for CMDs are to avoid widening health inequalities, key socioeconomic barriers to their accessibility and implementation must be addressed.

Non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions to improve mental health in deprived populations: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Common mental health disorders are especially prevalent among people from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. Non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions, such as social prescribing and collaborative care, provide alternatives to pharmaceutical treatments for common mental health disorders, but little is known about the impact of these interventions for patients who are socioeconomically disadvantaged. AIM: To synthesise evidence for the effects of non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions on common mental health disorders and associated socioeconomic inequalities. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of quantitative primary studies published in English and undertaken in high-income countries. METHOD: Six bibliographic databases were searched and additional grey literature sources screened. Data were extracted onto a standardised proforma and quality assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. Data were synthesised narratively and effect direction plots were produced for each outcome. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included. Social-prescribing interventions were evaluated in 10 studies, collaborative care in two studies, and a new model of care in one study. Positive results (based on effect direction) were reported for the impact of the interventions on wellbeing in groups that were socioeconomically deprived. Inconsistent (mainly positive) results were reported for anxiety and depression. One study reported that people from the group with least deprivation, compared with the group with greatest deprivation, benefitted most from these interventions. Overall, study quality was weak. CONCLUSION: Targeting non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions at areas of socioeconomic deprivation may help to reduce inequalities in mental health outcomes. However, only tentative conclusions can be drawn from the evidence in this review and more-robust research is required.

Which Non-Pharmaceutical Primary Care Interventions Reduce Inequalities in Common Mental Health Disorders? A Protocol for a Systematic Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Studies.

Common mental health disorders (CMDs) represent a major public health concern and are particularly prevalent in people experiencing disadvantage or marginalisation. Primary care is the first point of contact for people with CMDs. Pharmaceutical interventions, such as antidepressants, are commonly used in the treatment of CMDs; however, there is concern that these treatments are over-prescribed and ineffective for treating mental distress related to social conditions. Non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions, such as psychological therapies and "social prescribing", provide alternatives for CMDs. Little is known, however, about which such interventions reduce social inequalities in CMD-related outcomes, and which may, unintentionally, increase them. The aim of this protocol (PROSPERO registration number CRD42021281166) is to describe how we will undertake a systematic review to assess the effects of non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions on CMD-related outcomes and social inequalities. A systematic review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods primary studies will be undertaken and reported according to the PRISMA-Equity guidance. The following databases will be searched: Assia, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, PsycInfo and Scopus. Retrieved records will be screened according to pre-defined eligibility criteria and synthesised using a narrative approach, with meta-analysis if feasible. The findings of this review will guide efforts to commission more equitable mental health services.

Addressing Library Anxiety (LA) in student nurses: a study in an NHS Foundation Trust Hospital library and information service.

Library anxiety is a concept which has been recognised in academic library circles since the early 1990s. It can result in students actively avoiding the library for the duration of their studies. Madeleine Still is Trust Librarian at North Tees & Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust and while studying for an MSc, recognised that some student nurses were exhibiting signs of library anxiety. She decided to make it the focus of her MSc dissertation, and this article discusses her research project as well as highlighting the measures she has taken to address the issues she uncovered. Madeleine graduated in July 2013 with an MSc in Information & Library Studies from Robert Gordon University.