Reconstruction of Broad Lower Lip Defects Using Karapandzic-Type Flaps.

BACKGROUND: Reconstruction of lower lip defects is challenging because of the functional and aesthetic demands of the lower face. We review the functional and aesthetic outcomes of the Karapandzic-type flaps for reconstructing lower lip defects. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent repair using Karapandzic-type flaps. RESULTS: Fifty patients with lower lip defects ranging from 20% to 95% (mean 59.2% ± 20%) were included. Eighteen patients (36%) were repaired using a bilateral flap, and 32 (64%) were reconstructed using a unilateral flap design. All patients had preservation of oral competency and a satisfactory aesthetic result. No patient complained of microstomia. A complication rate of 8% was noted (n = 4) with postoperative wound infection and small areas of dehiscence. There was no statistically significant difference in complication rates in patients older than 75 years, in patients with a history of head/neck radiation, or in defects greater than 70% of lower lip breadth. CONCLUSION: Karapandzic-type flaps are versatile and reliable for the reconstruction of a broad range of lower lip defects. This one-stage procedure can produce superior functional and aesthetic results as compared with other local and distant flaps with minimal risk of functional microstomia.

Radiological outcomes following surgical fixation with wires versus moulded cast for patients with a dorsally displaced fracture of the distal radius: a radiographic analysis from the DRAFFT2 trial.

Aims: The primary aim of this study was to report the radiological outcomes of patients with a dorsally displaced distal radius fracture who were randomized to a moulded cast or surgical fixation with wires following manipulation and closed reduction of their fracture. The secondary aim was to correlate radiological outcomes with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the year following injury. Methods: Participants were recruited as part of DRAFFT2, a UK multicentre clinical trial. Participants were aged 16 years or over with a dorsally displaced distal radius fracture, and were eligible for the trial if they needed a manipulation of their fracture, as recommended by their treating surgeon. Participants were randomly allocated on a 1:1 ratio to moulded cast or Kirschner wires after manipulation of the fracture in the operating theatre. Standard posteroanterior and lateral radiographs were performed in the radiology department of participating centres at the time of the patient's initial assessment in the emergency department and six weeks postoperatively. Intraoperative fluoroscopic images taken at the time of fracture reduction were also assessed. Results: Patients treated with surgical fixation with wires had less dorsal angulation of the radius versus those treated in a moulded cast at six weeks after manipulation of the fracture; the mean difference of -4.13° was statistically significant (95% confidence interval 5.82 to -2.45). There was no evidence of a difference in radial shortening. However, there was no correlation between these radiological measurements and PROMs at any timepoint in the 12 months post-injury. Conclusion: For patients with a dorsally displaced distal radius fracture treated with a closed manipulation, surgical fixation with wires leads to less dorsal angulation on radiographs at six weeks compared with patients treated in a moulded plaster cast alone. However, the difference in dorsal angulation was small and did not correlate with patient-reported pain and function.

Editorial Commentary: Evidence for Patch Augmentation of Rotator Cuff Repair Is Weak.

Rotator cuff repair has a substantial failure rate despite various attempts to improve outcome and prevent a retear. Patch augmentation is an intuitively appealing approach to seek to reduce failure rate and improve outcomes for patients. Two main augmentation approaches are used: "on-lay" and "bridging." The literature is heterogeneous, and the best approach is uncertain. The evidence on patch augmentation for rotator cuff repair is both disparate and weak. Large randomized trials and registry data are required to move the field, ensure patient safety, and avoid wasting precious resources.

Effect of a 2-week interruption in methotrexate treatment on COVID-19 vaccine response in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (VROOM study): a randomised, open label, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Methotrexate is the first-line treatment for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and reduces vaccine-induced immunity. We evaluated if a 2-week interruption of methotrexate treatment immediately after COVID-19 booster vaccination improved antibody response against the S1 receptor binding domain (S1-RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and live SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation compared with uninterrupted treatment in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. METHOD: We did a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, superiority trial in secondary-care rheumatology and dermatology clinics in 26 hospitals in the UK. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases taking methotrexate (≤25 mg per week) for at least 3 months, who had received two primary vaccine doses from the UK COVID-19 vaccination programme were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a centralised validated computer program, to temporarily suspend methotrexate treatment for 2 weeks immediately after COVID-19 booster vaccination or continue treatment as usual. The primary outcome was S1-RBD antibody titres 4 weeks after COVID-19 booster vaccination and was assessed masked to group assignment. All randomly assigned patients were included in primary and safety analyses. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN11442263; following a pre-planned interim analysis, recruitment was stopped early. FINDING: Between Sept 30, 2021, and March 7, 2022, we screened 685 individuals, of whom 383 were randomly assigned: to either suspend methotrexate (n=191; mean age 58·8 years [SD 12·5], 118 [62%] women and 73 [38%] men) or to continue methotrexate (n=192; mean age 59·3 years [11·9], 117 [61%] women and 75 [39%] men). At 4 weeks, the geometric mean S1-RBD antibody titre was 25 413 U/mL (95% CI 22 227-29 056) in the suspend methotrexate group and 12 326 U/mL (10 538-14 418) in the continue methotrexate group with a geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 2·08 (95% CI 1·59-2·70; p<0·0001). No intervention-related serious adverse events occurred. INTERPRETATION: 2-week interruption of methotrexate treatment in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases enhanced antibody responses after COVID-19 booster vaccination that were sustained at 12 weeks and 26 weeks. There was a temporary increase in inflammatory disease flares, mostly self-managed. The choice to suspend methotrexate should be individualised based on disease status and vulnerability to severe outcomes from COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Immune responses and clinical outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with liver disease and liver transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Comparative assessments of immunogenicity following different COVID-19 vaccines in patients with distinct liver diseases are lacking. SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell and antibody responses were evaluated longitudinally after one to three vaccine doses, with long-term follow-up for COVID-19-related clinical outcomes. METHODS: A total of 849 participants (355 with cirrhosis, 74 with autoimmune hepatitis [AIH], 36 with vascular liver disease [VLD], 257 liver transplant recipients [LTRs] and 127 healthy controls [HCs]) were recruited from four countries. Standardised immune assays were performed pre and post three vaccine doses (V1-3). RESULTS: In the total cohort, there were incremental increases in antibody titres after each vaccine dose (p <0.0001). Factors associated with reduced antibody responses were age and LT, whereas heterologous vaccination, prior COVID-19 and mRNA platforms were associated with greater responses. Although antibody titres decreased between post-V2 and pre-V3 (p = 0.012), patients with AIH, VLD, and cirrhosis had equivalent antibody responses to HCs post-V3. LTRs had lower and more heterogenous antibody titres than other groups, including post-V3 where 9% had no detectable antibodies; this was heavily influenced by intensity of immunosuppression. Vaccination increased T-cell IFNγ responses in all groups except LTRs. Patients with liver disease had lower functional antibody responses against nine Omicron subvariants and reduced T-cell responses to Omicron BA.1-specific peptides compared to wild-type. 122 cases of breakthrough COVID-19 were reported of which 5/122 (4%) were severe. Of the severe cases, 4/5 (80%) occurred in LTRs and 2/5 (40%) had no serological response post-V2. CONCLUSION: After three COVID-19 vaccines, patients with liver disease generally develop robust antibody and T-cell responses to vaccination and have mild COVID-19. However, LTRs have sustained no/low antibody titres and appear most vulnerable to severe disease. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Standardised assessments of the immune response to different COVID-19 vaccines in patients with liver disease are lacking. We performed antibody and T-cell assays at multiple timepoints following up to three vaccine doses in a large cohort of patients with a range of liver conditions. Overall, the three most widely available vaccine platforms were immunogenic and appeared to protect against severe breakthrough COVID-19. This will provide reassurance to patients with chronic liver disease who were deemed at high risk of severe COVID-19 during the pre-vaccination era, however, liver transplant recipients had the lowest antibody titres and remained vulnerable to severe breakthrough infection. We also characterise the immune response to multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants and describe the interaction between disease type, severity, and vaccine platform. These insights may prove useful in the event of future viral infections which also require rapid vaccine development and delivery to patients with liver disease.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a pragmatic randomized trial evaluating surgical reconstruction versus rehabilitation in patients with long-standing anterior cruciate ligament injury.

Aims: The aim of this study was to estimate the incremental use of resources, costs, and quality of life outcomes associated with surgical reconstruction compared to rehabilitation for long-standing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury in the NHS, and to estimate its cost-effectiveness. Methods: A total of 316 patients were recruited and randomly assigned to either surgical reconstruction or rehabilitation (physiotherapy but with subsequent reconstruction permitted if instability persisted after treatment). Healthcare resource use and health-related quality of life data (EuroQol five-dimension five-level health questionnaire) were collected in the trial at six, 12, and 18 months using self-reported questionnaires and medical records. Using intention-to-treat analysis, differences in costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between treatment arms were estimated adjusting for baseline differences and following multiple imputation of missing data. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated as the difference in costs divided by the difference in QALYs between reconstruction and rehabilitation. Results: At 18 months, patients in the surgical reconstruction arm reported higher QALYs (0.052 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.012 to 0.117); p = 0.177) and higher NHS costs (£1,017 (95% CI 557 to 1,476); p < 0.001) compared to rehabilitation. This resulted in an ICER of £19,346 per QALY with the probability of surgical reconstruction being cost-effective of 51% and 72% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY, respectively. Conclusion: Surgical reconstruction as a management strategy for patients with long-standing ACL injury is more effective, but more expensive, at 18 months compared to rehabilitation management. In the UK setting, surgical reconstruction is cost-effective.

How surgical Trainee Research Collaboratives achieve success: a mixed methods study to develop trainee engagement strategies.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to understand the role of surgical Trainee Research Collaboratives (TRCs) in conducting randomised controlled trials and identify strategies to enhance trainee engagement in trials. DESIGN: This is a mixed methods study. We used observation of TRC meetings, semi-structured interviews and an online survey to explore trainees' motivations for engagement in trials and TRCs, including barriers and facilitators. Interviews were analysed thematically, alongside observation field notes. Survey responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. Strategies to enhance TRCs were developed at a workshop by 13 trial methodologists, surgical trainees, consultants and research nurses. SETTING: This study was conducted within a secondary care setting in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was sent to registered UK surgical trainees. TRC members and linked stakeholders across surgical specialties and UK regions were purposefully sampled for interviews. RESULTS: We observed 5 TRC meetings, conducted 32 semi-structured interviews and analysed 73 survey responses. TRCs can mobilise trainees thus gaining wider access to patients. Trainees engaged with TRCs to improve patient care, surgical evidence and to help progress their careers. Trainees valued the TRC infrastructure, research expertise and mentoring. Challenges for trainees included clinical and other priorities, limited time and confidence, and recognition, especially by authorship. Key TRC strategies were consultant support, initial simple rapid studies, transparency of involvement and recognition for trainees (including authorship policies) and working with Clinical Trials Units and research nurses. A 6 min digital story on YouTube disseminated these strategies. CONCLUSION: Trainee surgeons are mostly motivated to engage with trials and TRCs. Trainee engagement in TRCs can be enhanced through building relationships with key stakeholders, maximising multi-disciplinary working and offering training and career development opportunities.

Conditional versus non-conditional incentives to maximise return of participant completed questionnaires in clinical trials: a cluster randomised study within a trial.

BACKGROUND: High participant retention enhances the validity of clinical trials. A monetary incentive can increase retention, but it is not known if when it is provided and if it is conditional matters. We aimed to determine whether there was a difference in the number of follow-up trial questionnaires returned when a monetary (gift voucher) incentive was given to participants at recruitment (non-conditional), compared to informing participants at recruitment that the incentive would be given only once their 14-day daily diary (questionnaire) had been returned (conditional). METHOD: A cluster randomised study within a trial embedded within the Antivirals for influenza-Like Illness, An rCt of Clinical and Cost effectiveness in primary CarE (ALIC4E) Trial. Matched site pairs (GP practices) were randomised using computer-generated random numbers, to either a non-conditional or conditional monetary voucher incentive (only once their 14-day daily diary (questionnaire) had been returned. Sites were matched on previous recruitment levels and practice list size. Analyses were conducted according to randomised groups irrespective of compliance with a two-sided 5% level statistical significance level. The main analysis of the primary outcome (site proportion of diaries returned) was linear regression accounting for site pair (using cluster-robust variance). Additional weighted, paired and non-parametric sensitivity analyses were conducted. Secondary outcomes were the site average number of completed pages, time to return diary, and cost related to the incentive (administration and postage). RESULTS: Of the 42 randomised sites (21 for each intervention), only 28 recruited at least one participant with only 10 practice pairs recruiting participants at both constituent sites. Raw diaries return proportions were 0.58 (127/220) and 0.73 (91/125) for non-conditional and conditional incentive groups. Regression analysis adjusted for site pair showed no significant difference in returns, - 0.09, (95% CI, - 0.29, 0.10, p = 0.34); when weighted, there was still no clear difference: 0.15 (95% CI, - 0.02, 0.31, p = 0.07). There was no clear statistical evidence of a difference in time taken to return questionnaires, nor the proportion of pages completed, by the intervention group in the main analyses (all p > 0.05). The conditional incentive was approximately £23 cheaper per diary returned based upon observed data. CONCLUSION: There was no clear evidence of a statistically significant difference in the proportion of participant-completed diaries returned between conditional or non-conditional incentive groups. The time to questionnaire return and completeness of the returned questionnaires were similar in both groups. There was substantial statistical uncertainty in the findings. Some of the sensitivity analyses suggested that a meaningful benefit of a conditional incentive of a magnitude that would be meaningful was plausible. The conditional approach costs less in cash terms.

Appropriate design and reporting of superiority, equivalence and non-inferiority clinical trials incorporating a benefit-risk assessment: the BRAINS study including expert workshop.

Background: Randomised controlled trials are designed to assess the superiority, equivalence or non-inferiority of a new health technology, but which trial design should be used is not always obvious in practice. In particular, when using equivalence or non-inferiority designs, multiple outcomes of interest may be important for the success of a trial, despite the fact that usually only a single primary outcome is used to design the trial. Benefit-risk methods are used in the regulatory clinical trial setting to assess multiple outcomes and consider the trade-off of the benefits against the risks, but are not regularly implemented in publicly funded trials. Objectives: The aim of the project is to aid the design of clinical trials with multiple outcomes of interest by defining when each trial design is appropriate to use and identifying when to use benefit-risk methods to assess outcome trade-offs (qualitatively or quantitatively) in a publicly funded trial setting. Methods: A range of methods was used to elicit expert opinion to answer the project objectives, including a web-based survey of relevant researchers, a rapid review of current literature and a 2-day consensus workshop of experts (in 2019). Results: We created a list of 19 factors to aid researchers in selecting the most appropriate trial design, containing the following overarching sections: population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, feasibility and perspectives. Six key reasons that indicate a benefit-risk method should be considered within a trial were identified: (1) when the success of the trial depends on more than one outcome; (2) when important outcomes within the trial are in competing directions (i.e. a health technology is better for one outcome, but worse for another); (3) to allow patient preferences to be included and directly influence trial results; (4) to provide transparency on subjective recommendations from a trial; (5) to provide consistency in the approach to presenting results from a trial; and (6) to synthesise multiple outcomes into a single metric. Further information was provided to support the use of benefit-risk methods in appropriate circumstances, including the following: methods identified from the review were collated into different groupings and described to aid the selection of a method; potential implementation of methods throughout the trial process were provided and discussed (with examples); and general considerations were described for those using benefit-risk methods. Finally, a checklist of five pieces of information that should be present when reporting benefit-risk methods was defined, with two additional items specifically for reporting the results. Conclusions: These recommendations will assist research teams in selecting which trial design to use and deciding whether or not a benefit-risk method could be included to ensure research questions are answered appropriately. Additional information is provided to support consistent use and clear reporting of benefit-risk methods in the future. The recommendations can also be used by funding committees to confirm that appropriate considerations of the trial design have been made. Limitations: This research was limited in scope and should be considered in conjunction with other trial design methodologies to assess appropriateness. In addition, further research is needed to provide concrete information about which benefit-risk methods are best to use in publicly funded trials, along with recommendations that are specific to each method. Study registration: The rapid review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019144882. Funding: Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health and Care Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health and Care Research Methodology Research programme.

Randomised controlled trials are considered the best way to gather evidence about potential NHS treatments. They can be designed from different perspectives depending whether the aim is to show that a new treatment is better than, equal to or no worse than the current best available treatment. The selection of this design relates to the single most important outcome; however, often multiple outcomes can be affected by a treatment. For example, a new treatment may improve disease management but increase side effects. Patients want a treatment to work but not at the price of poor quality of life; therefore, a trade-off must be made, and the recommended treatment depends on this trade-off. Benefit­risk methods can assess the trade-off between multiple outcomes and can include patient preference. These methods could improve the way that decisions are made about treatments in the NHS, but there is currently limited research about the use of these methods in publicly funded trials. The aim of this report is to improve the design of clinical trials by helping researchers to select the most appropriate trial design and to decide when to include a benefit­risk method. The recommendations were created using the opinions of experts within the field and consisted of a survey, review of the literature and a workshop. The project created a list of 19 factors that can assist researchers to select the most appropriate trial design. Furthermore, six key areas were identified in which researchers may consider including a benefit­risk method within a trial. Finally, if a benefit­risk assessment is being used, a checklist of items has been created that identifies the information important to include in reports. This report is, however, limited in its applicability and further research should extend this work, as well as provide more detail on individual methods that are available.

Protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial examining the effects of temporarily pausing Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy to coincide with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and its impact on immune responses in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.

INTRODUCTION: People who are immunocompromised have a poor biological response to vaccinations. This study aims to determine in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) if a 3-week pause in Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy (BTKi) starting 1 week before delivery of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster, improves vaccine immune response when compared with continuation of BTKi. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial will be conducted in haematology clinics in approximately 10 UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. The sample size is 120, randomised 1:1 to intervention and usual care arms. The primary outcome is anti-spike-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibody level at 3 weeks post-SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccination. Secondary outcomes are RBD antibody levels at 12 weeks postbooster vaccination, participant global assessments of disease activity, blood films, full blood count and lactate dehydrogenase levels, impact on quality of life, self-reported adherence with request to temporarily pause or continue BTKi, T cell response against spike protein and relative neutralising antibody titre against SARS-CoV-2 viral variants. Additionally, there will be an investigation of any effects in those given influenza vaccination contemporaneously versus COVID-19 alone.The primary analysis will be performed on the as randomised groups ('intention to treat'). The difference between the study arms in anti-spike-RBD antibody level will be estimated using a mixed effects regression model, allowing for repeated measures clustered within participants. The model will be adjusted for randomisation factor (first line or subsequent line of therapy), and prior infection status obtained from prerandomisation antinucleocapsid antibodies as fixed effects. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by Leeds East Research Ethics Committee and Health Research Authority (REC Reference:22/YH/0226, IRAS ID: 319057). Dissemination will be via peer-review publications, newsletters and conferences. Results will be communicated to participants, the CLL patient and clinical communities and health policy-makers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14197181.

Phage Therapy in the Management of Urinary Tract Infections: A Comprehensive Systematic Review.

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are a problem worldwide, affecting almost half a billion people each year. Increasing antibiotic resistance and limited therapeutic options have led to the exploration of alternative therapies for UTIs, including bacteriophage (phage) therapy. This systematic review aims at evaluating the efficacy of phage therapy in treating UTIs. We employed a comprehensive search strategy for any language, any animal, and any publication date. A total of 55 in vivo and clinical studies were included. Of the studies, 22% were published in a non-English language, 32.7% were before the year 1996, and the rest were after 2005. The results of this review suggest that phage therapy for UTIs can be effective; more than 72% of the included articles reported microbiological and clinical improvements. On the other hand, only 5 randomized controlled trials have been completed, and case reports and case series information were frequently incomplete for analysis. Overall, this comprehensive systematic review identifies preliminary evidence supporting the potential of phage therapy as a safe and viable option for the treatment of UTIs.

The Hand and Wrist: AntImicrobials and Infection (HAWAII) trial.

BACKGROUND: Hand trauma, comprising injuries to both the hand and wrist, affects over five million people per year in the NHS, resulting in 250 000 operations each year. Surgical site infection (SSI) following hand trauma surgery leads to significant morbidity. Triclosan-coated sutures may reduce SSI in major abdominal surgery but have never been tested in hand trauma. Feasibility needs to be ascertained before a definitive trial can be delivered in hand trauma. METHODS: A multicentre feasibility RCT of antimicrobial sutures versus standard sutures involving adults undergoing surgery for hand trauma to evaluate feasibility for a definitive trial. Secondary objectives were incidence of SSI in both groups, hand function measured with patient-reported outcome measures, health-related quality of life and change in employment. Randomization was performed on a 1:1 basis, stratified by age of the patient and whether the injury was open or closed, using a secure, centralized, online randomization service. Participants were blinded to allocation. RESULTS: 116 participants were recruited and randomized (60 intervention, 56 control). Of 227 screened, most were eligible (89.5 per cent), and most who were approached agreed to be included in the study (84.7 per cent). Retention was low: 57.5 per cent at 30 days, 52 per cent at 90 days and 45.1 per cent at 6 months. Incidence of SSI was >20 per cent in both groups. Hand function deteriorated after injury but recovered to near pre-injury levels during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of SSI after hand trauma is high. A definitive RCT of antimicrobial sutures in hand trauma surgery is feasible, if retention is improved. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN10771059.

Surgical site infection following surgery for hand trauma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Surgical site infection is the most common healthcare-associated infection. Surgical site infection after surgery for hand trauma is associated with increased antibiotic prescribing, re-operation, hospital readmission and delayed rehabilitation, and in severe cases may lead to amputation. As the risk of surgical site infection after surgery for hand trauma remains unclear, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all primary studies of hand trauma surgery, including randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and case series. A total of 8836 abstracts were screened, and 201 full studies with 315,618 patients included. The meta-analysis showed a 10% risk of surgical site infection in randomized control trials, with an overall risk of 5% when all studies were included. These summary statistics can be used clinically for informed consent and shared decision making, and for power calculations for future clinical trials of antimicrobial interventions in hand trauma.

Investigating Cortisol in a STEM Classroom: The Association Between Cortisol and Academic Performance.

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education can be stressful, but uncertainty exists about (a) whether stressful academic settings elevate cortisol, particularly among students from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups, and (b) whether cortisol responses are associated with academic performance. In four classes around the first exam in a gateway college STEM course, we investigated participants' (N = 271) cortisol levels as a function of race/ethnicity and tested whether cortisol responses predicted students' performance. Regardless of race/ethnicity, students' cortisol, on average, declined from the beginning to the end of each class and across the four classes. Among underrepresented minority (URM) students, higher cortisol responses predicted better performance and a lower likelihood of dropping the course. Among non-URM students, there were no such associations. For URM students, lower cortisol responses may have indicated disengagement, whereas higher cortisol responses may have indicated striving. The implication of cortisol responses can depend on how members of a group experience an environment.

The importance of clinical importance when determining the target difference in sample size calculations.

Recently, it was argued that clinically important differences should play no role in sample size calculations. Instead, it was proposed that sample size calculations should focus on setting realistic estimates of treatment benefit. We disagree, and argue in this article that considering the importance of a target difference is necessary in the context of randomised controlled trials of effectiveness, particularly definitive phase III trials. Ignoring clinical importance could have serious ethical and practical consequences.

Findings from a pilot randomized trial of spinal decompression alone or spinal decompression plus instrumented fusion.

Aims: Symptomatic spinal stenosis is a very common problem, and decompression surgery has been shown to be superior to nonoperative treatment in selected patient groups. However, performing an instrumented fusion in addition to decompression may avoid revision and improve outcomes. The aim of the SpInOuT feasibility study was to establish whether a definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) that accounted for the spectrum of pathology contributing to spinal stenosis, including pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch and mobile spondylolisthesis, could be conducted. Methods: As part of the SpInOuT-F study, a pilot randomized trial was carried out across five NHS hospitals. Patients were randomized to either spinal decompression alone or spinal decompression plus instrumented fusion. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected at baseline and three months. The intended sample size was 60 patients. Results: Of the 90 patients screened, 77 passed the initial screening criteria. A total of 27 patients had a PI-LL mismatch and 23 had a dynamic spondylolisthesis. Following secondary inclusion and exclusion criteria, 31 patients were eligible for the study. Six patients were randomized and one underwent surgery during the study period. Given the low number of patients recruited and randomized, it was not possible to assess completion rates, quality of life, imaging, or health economic outcomes as intended. Conclusion: This study provides a unique insight into the prevalence of dynamic spondylolisthesis and PI-LL mismatch in patients with symptomatic spinal stenosis, and demonstrates that there is a need for a definitive RCT which stratifies for these groups in order to inform surgical decision-making. Nonetheless a definitive study would need further refinement in design and implementation in order to be feasible.

Duroplasty for injured cervical spinal cord with uncontrolled swelling: protocol of the DISCUS randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cervical traumatic spinal cord injury is a devastating condition. Current management (bony decompression) may be inadequate as after acute severe TSCI, the swollen spinal cord may become compressed against the surrounding tough membrane, the dura. DISCUS will test the hypothesis that, after acute, severe traumatic cervical spinal cord injury, the addition of dural decompression to bony decompression improves muscle strength in the limbs at 6 months, compared with bony decompression alone. METHODS: This is a prospective, phase III, multicenter, randomized controlled superiority trial. We aim to recruit 222 adults with acute, severe, traumatic cervical spinal cord injury with an American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale grade A, B, or C who will be randomized 1:1 to undergo bony decompression alone or bony decompression with duroplasty. Patients and outcome assessors are blinded to study arm. The primary outcome is change in the motor score at 6 months vs. admission; secondary outcomes assess function (grasp, walking, urinary + anal sphincters), quality of life, complications, need for further surgery, and mortality, at 6 months and 12 months from randomization. A subgroup of at least 50 patients (25/arm) also has observational monitoring from the injury site using a pressure probe (intraspinal pressure, spinal cord perfusion pressure) and/or microdialysis catheter (cord metabolism: tissue glucose, lactate, pyruvate, lactate to pyruvate ratio, glutamate, glycerol; cord inflammation: tissue chemokines/cytokines). Patients are recruited from the UK and internationally, with UK recruitment supported by an integrated QuinteT recruitment intervention to optimize recruitment and informed consent processes. Estimated study duration is 72 months (6 months set-up, 48 months recruitment, 12 months to complete follow-up, 6 months data analysis and reporting results). DISCUSSION: We anticipate that the addition of duroplasty to standard of care will improve muscle strength; this has benefits for patients and carers, as well as substantial gains for health services and society including economic implications. If the addition of duroplasty to standard treatment is beneficial, it is anticipated that duroplasty will become standard of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: IRAS: 292031 (England, Wales, Northern Ireland) - Registration date: 24 May 2021, 296518 (Scotland), ISRCTN: 25573423 (Registration date: 2 June 2021); ClinicalTrials.gov number : NCT04936620 (Registration date: 21 June 2021); NIHR CRN 48627 (Registration date: 24 May 2021).

A Structural Model of Organization and Clinician Factors Associated with Standardized Measure Use in a National Survey of Youth Mental Health Providers.

Standardized assessment measures are important for accurate diagnosis of mental health problems and for treatment planning and evaluation. However, little is known about youth mental health providers' typical use of standardized measures across disciplines and outside the context of evidence-based practice initiatives. A multidisciplinary national survey examined the frequency with which 674 youth mental health providers administer standardized and unstandardized measures, and the extent to which organizational (i.e., implementation climate, rigid hierarchical organizational structure) and provider (i.e., attitudes toward standardized assessment measures, highest degree, practice setting) characteristics are associated with standardized measure use. Providers used unstandardized measures far more frequently than standardized measures. Providers' perceptions (a) that standardized measures are practical or feasible, (b) that their organization supports and values evidence-based practices, and (c) that their organization has a rigid hierarchical structure predicted greater use of standardized measures. Working in schools predicted less frequent SMU, while working in higher education and other professional settings predicted more frequent SMU. Standardized measures were not routinely used in this community-based sample. A rigid hierarchical organizational structure may be conducive to more frequent administration of standardized measures, but it is unclear whether such providers actually utilize these measures for clinical decision-making. Alternative strategies to promote standardized measure use may include promoting organizational cultures that value empirical data and encouraging use of standardized measures and training providers to use pragmatic standardized measures for clinical decision making.