Relationship between age, workplace slips and the effectiveness of slip-resistant footwear among healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVES: To explore any age-related trend in workplace slip rate and assess the effectiveness of appropriate slip-resistant footwear in preventing workplace slips by age. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of the Stopping Slips among Healthcare Workers trial, a two-arm randomised controlled trial conducted between March 2017 and May 2019. 4553 National Health Service (NHS) staff across seven sites in England were randomised 1:1 to the intervention group (provision of 5* GRIP-rated slip-resistant footwear) or the control group (usual work footwear). The primary outcome was self-reported workplace slips, ascertained primarily through weekly text messages throughout the 14-week trial follow-up and analysed using mixed-effects negative binomial regression. This paper reports a control group-only analysis of the association between age and slip rate, and a full intention-to-treat analysis of the effectiveness of slip-resistant footwear by age. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 43 years (range 18-74). In the control group-only analysis, slip rate differed by age (p<0.001) with those aged 60+ having double the slip rate of those aged <30 years (95% CI 1.40 to 2.87). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the interaction between allocation and age was statistically significant (p=0.002). In addition, for all age groups except those aged <30 years, the slip rate in the intervention group was statistically significantly lower than the control group; the smallest incidence rate ratio (ie, the biggest effect) was 0.39 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.64) in the 60+ age group. CONCLUSION: The provision of appropriate slip-resistant footwear was more effective at reducing workplace slips for older NHS staff.

Slip-resistant footwear reduces slips among National Health Service workers in England: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Assess the effectiveness of 5* GRIP-rated slip-resistant footwear in preventing slips in the workplace compared to usual footwear (control group). METHODS: A multicentre, randomised controlled trial; 4553 National Health Service (NHS) staff were randomised 1:1 to the intervention group (provided with 5* GRIP-rated slip-resistant footwear) or the control group. The primary outcome of incidence rate of self-reported slips in the workplace over 14 weeks was analysed using a mixed-effects negative binomial model. Secondary outcome measures included incidence rate of falls from a slip, falls not from a slip, proportion of participants reporting a slip, fall or fracture and time to first slip and fall. RESULTS: 6743 slips were reported: 2633 in the intervention group (mean 1.16 per participant, range 0 to 36) and 4110 in the control group (mean 1.80 per participant, range 0 to 83). There was a statistically significant reduction in slip rate in the intervention group relative to the control group (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.63, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.70, p<0.001). Statistically significant differences, in favour of the intervention group, were observed in falls from a slip (IRR 0.51, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.92, p=0.03), the proportion of participants who reported a slip (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.66, p<0.001) or fall (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.99, p=0.04) and time to first slip (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.80, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The offer and provision of 5* GRIP-rated footwear reduced slips in NHS staff in the workplace. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN33051393.

Baseline testing in cluster randomised controlled trials: should this be done?

BACKGROUND: Comparisons of baseline covariates in randomised controlled trials whilst often undertaken is regarded by many as an exercise in futility. Because of randomisation the null hypothesis is true for baseline comparisons and therefore any differences will occur by chance. However, this is only the case if allocations are not known in advance of recruitment. If this occurs then selection bias at randomisation may be present and it is possible that the statistical testing of covariates may unveil selection bias. In this paper we show that this is particularly the case for cluster randomised trials when post-randomised recruitment often occurs and can lead to selection bias. MAIN TEXT: We take a recently published cluster randomised trial that has suffered from selection bias due to differential recruitment and calculate baseline p values. We show that statistically significant imbalances of p < 0.0001 occurred in 5 of the 10 covariates. In comparison for an individually randomised trial that had no evidence of selection bias only 1 p value of p < 0.05 out of 20 tests was observed. Had baseline p values for the cluster trial been presented to journal editors, reviewers and readers then the results of the trial might have been treated with more caution. CONCLUSION: We argue that the blanket ban of baseline testing as advocated by some may reduce the chance of identifying deficient cluster randomised trials and this opposition should be reconsidered for cluster trials.

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.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of compression hosiery versus compression bandages in treatment of venous leg ulcers (Venous leg Ulcer Study IV, VenUS IV): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Drawbacks exist with the standard treatment (four-layer compression bandages) for venous leg ulcers. We have therefore compared the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two-layer compression hosiery with the four-layer bandage for the treatment of such ulcers. METHODS: We undertook this pragmatic, open, randomised controlled trial with two parallel groups in 34 centres in England and Northern Ireland. The centres were community nurse teams or services, family doctor practices, leg ulcer clinics, tissue viability clinics or services, and wound clinics. Participants were aged 18 years or older with a venous leg ulcer and an ankle brachial pressure index of at least 0·8, and were tolerant of high compression. We randomly allocated participants (1:1) to receive two-layer compression hosiery or a four-layer bandage, using a remote randomisation service and prevalidated computer randomisation program. Participants were stratified by ulcer duration and ulcer area with permuted blocks (block sizes four and six). The primary endpoint was time to ulcer healing, with a maximum follow-up of 12 months. Although participants and health-care providers were not masked to treatment allocation, the primary endpoint was measured by masked assessment of photographs. Primary analysis was intention to treat with Cox regression, with adjustment for ulcer area, ulcer duration, physical mobility, and centre. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN register, number ISRCTN49373072. FINDINGS: We randomly allocated 457 participants to the two treatment groups: 230 to two-layer hosiery and 227 to the four-layer bandage, of whom 453 (230 hosiery and 223 bandage) contributed data for analysis. Median time to ulcer healing was 99 days (95% CI 84-126) in the hosiery group and 98 days (85-112) in the bandage group, and the proportion of ulcers healing was much the same in the two groups (70·9% hosiery and 70·4% bandage). More hosiery participants changed their allocated treatment (38·3% hosiery vs 27·0% bandage; p=0·02). 300 participants had 895 adverse events, of which 85 (9·5%) were classed as serious but unrelated to trial treatment. INTERPRETATION: Two-layer compression hosiery is a viable alternative to the four-layer bandage-it is equally as effective at healing venous leg ulcers. However, a higher rate of treatment changes in participants in the hosiery group than in the bandage group suggests that hosiery might not be suitable for all patients. FUNDING: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (07/60/26).

Cost-effectiveness of a two-layer compression bandage versus standard bandage following total knee arthroplasty.

Aims: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a two-layer compression bandage versus a standard wool and crepe bandage following total knee arthroplasty, using patient-level data from the Knee Replacement Bandage Study (KReBS). Methods: A cost-utility analysis was undertaken alongside KReBS, a pragmatic, two-arm, open label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial, in terms of the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Overall, 2,330 participants scheduled for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were randomized to either a two-layer compression bandage or a standard wool and crepe bandage. Costs were estimated over a 12-month period from the UK NHS perspective, and health outcomes were reported as QALYs based on participants' EuroQol five-dimesion five-level questionnaire responses. Multiple imputation was used to deal with missing data and sensitivity analyses included a complete case analysis and testing of costing assumptions, with a secondary analysis exploring the inclusion of productivity losses. Results: The base case analysis found participants in the compression bandage group accrued marginally fewer QALYs, on average, compared with those in the standard bandage group (reduction of 0.0050 QALYs (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.0051 to -0.0049)), and accumulated additional mean costs (incremental cost of £52.68 per participant (95% CI 50.56 to 54.80)). Findings remained robust to assumptions tested in sensitivity analyses, although considerable uncertainty surrounded the outcome estimates. Conclusion: Use of a two-layer compression bandage is marginally less effective in terms of health-related quality of life, and more expensive when compared with a standard bandage following TKA, so therefore is unlikely to provide a cost-effective option.

Can routine assessment of older people's mental health lead to improved outcomes: A regression discontinuity analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether case finding for depression among people aged 65 and above improves mental health. DESIGN: Opportunistic evaluation using a regression discontinuity analysis with data from a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: The REFORM trial, a falls prevention study that recruited patients from NHS podiatry clinics. PARTICIPANTS: 1010 community-dwelling adults over the age of 65 with at least one risk factor for falling (recent previous fall or fear of falling). INTERVENTION: Letter sent to patient's General Practitioner if they scored 10 points or above on the 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) informing them of the patient's risk of depression. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: GDS-15 score six months after initial completion of GDS-15. RESULTS: 895 (88.6%) of the 1010 participants randomised into REFORM had a valid baseline and six-month GDS-15 score and were included in this study. The mean GDS-15 baseline score was 3.5 (SD 3.0, median 3.0, range 0-15); 639 (71.4%) scored 0-4, 204 (22.8%) scored 5-9 indicating mild depression, and 52 (5.8%) scored 10 or higher indicating severe depression. At six months follow-up, those scoring 10 points or higher at baseline had, on average, a reduction of 1.08 points on the GDS-15 scale (95% confidence interval -1.83 to -0.33, p = 0.005) compared to those scoring less than 10, using the simplest linear regression model. CONCLUSION: Case finding of depression in podiatry patients based on a GDS-15 score of 10 or more followed by a letter to their General Practitioner significantly reduced depression severity. Whether this applies to all older patients in primary care is unknown. Further research is required to confirm these findings. Regression discontinuity analyses could be prespecified and embedded within other existing research studies.

Undertaking Studies Within A Trial to evaluate recruitment and retention strategies for randomised controlled trials: lessons learnt from the PROMETHEUS research programme.

Background: Randomised controlled trials ('trials') are susceptible to poor participant recruitment and retention. Studies Within A Trial are the strongest methods for testing the effectiveness of strategies to improve recruitment and retention. However, relatively few of these have been conducted. Objectives: PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial aimed to facilitate at least 25 Studies Within A Trial evaluating recruitment or retention strategies. We share our experience of delivering the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme, and the lessons learnt for undertaking randomised Studies Within A Trial. Design: A network of 10 Clinical Trials Units and 1 primary care research centre committed to conducting randomised controlled Studies Within A Trial of recruitment and/or retention strategies was established. Promising recruitment and retention strategies were identified from various sources including Cochrane systematic reviews, the Study Within A Trial Repository, and existing prioritisation exercises, which were reviewed by patient and public members to create an initial priority list of seven recruitment and eight retention interventions. Host trial teams could apply for funding and receive support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to undertake Studies Within A Trial. We also tested the feasibility of undertaking co-ordinated Studies Within A Trial, across multiple host trials simultaneously. Setting: Clinical trials unit-based trials recruiting or following up participants in any setting in the United Kingdom were eligible. Participants: Clinical trials unit-based teams undertaking trials in any clinical context in the United Kingdom. Interventions: Funding of up to £5000 and support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to design, implement and report Studies Within A Trial. Main outcome measures: Number of host trials funded. Results: Forty-two Studies Within A Trial were funded (31 host trials), across 12 Clinical Trials Units. The mean cost of a Study Within A Trial was £3535. Twelve Studies Within A Trial tested the same strategy across multiple host trials using a co-ordinated Study Within A Trial design, and four used a factorial design. Two recruitment and five retention strategies were evaluated in more than one host trial. PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial will add 18% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane systematic review of recruitment strategies, and 79% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane review of retention strategies. For retention, we found that pre-notifying participants by card, letter or e-mail before sending questionnaires was effective, as was the use of pens, and sending personalised text messages to improve questionnaire response. We highlight key lessons learnt to guide others planning Studies Within A Trial, including involving patient and public involvement partners; prioritising and selecting strategies to evaluate and elements to consider when designing a Study Within A Trial; obtaining governance approvals; implementing Studies Within A Trial, including individual and co-ordinated Studies Within A Trials; and reporting Study Within A Trials. Limitations: The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted five Studies Within A Trial, being either delayed (n = 2) or prematurely terminated (n = 3). Conclusions: PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial significantly increased the evidence base for recruitment and retention strategies. When provided with both funding and practical support, host trial teams successfully implemented Studies Within A Trial. Future work: Future research should identify and target gaps in the evidence base, including widening Study Within A Trial uptake, undertaking more complex Studies Within A Trial and translating Study Within A Trial evidence into practice. Study registration: All Studies Within A Trial in the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme had to be registered with the Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research Study Within A Trial Repository. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/55/80) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 2. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

A Study Within A Trial is a research study nested inside a larger 'host trial', promoting the use of Studies Within A Trial aimed to do Study Within A Trial routine practice in clinical trial units by funding and supporting at least 25 Studies Within A Trial. The best way to test health and social care treatments is to do a randomised controlled trial ('trial'), where some patients get the treatment being tested and some do not. The results of different groups are compared to see if the treatment improves care. Recruiting patients and keeping them involved in trials is often very difficult. Research teams often do not know how best to recruit and keep patients engaged as the methods have not been tested to see if they work. The best way to test these methods is by doing a Study Within A Trial. We test a programme of Studies Within A Trial for recruiting and keeping patients engaged in trials. Trial teams were able to apply for funding of up to £5000 and receive support from Promoting the use of Study Within A Trial team to do Studies Within A Trial. We used our experience of doing Studies Within A Trial to outline lessons learnt for doing Studies Within A Trial. We funded 42 Studies Within A Trial and gave teams necessary advice to do them. We significantly increased the knowledge for both recruitment and retention strategies, and found 'pre-notifying' before sending questionnaires, sending pens and personalised text messages were all effective for increasing responses by participants. We tested Studies Within A Trial across several different trials at the same time to find out more quickly whether their methods worked. We highlight key lessons learnt to guide others doing Studies Within A Trial, including involving patient partners; picking the right strategy to test; getting ethical approvals; how to do and report Studies Within A Trial. Promoting the use of studies within a trial was successful and supported more Studies Within A Trial than planned. We hope our experience will support those doing Studies Within A Trial in the future.

Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions.

Introduction: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INSPECT-SR project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare related interventions. Methods and analysis: The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: 1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, 2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, 3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in 4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format, 5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies, and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare.

Oral treatments for fungal infections of the skin of the foot.

BACKGROUND: About 15% of the world population have fungal infections of the feet (tinea pedis or athlete's foot). There are many clinical presentations of tinea pedis, and most commonly, tinea pedis is seen between the toes (interdigital) and on the soles, heels, and sides of the foot (plantar). Plantar tinea pedis is known as moccasin foot. Once acquired, the infection can spread to other sites including the nails, which can be a source of re-infection. Oral therapy is usually used for chronic conditions or when topical treatment has failed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of oral treatments for fungal infections of the skin of the foot (tinea pedis). SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched the following databases to July 2012: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and CINAHL (from 1981). We checked the bibliographies of retrieved trials for further references to relevant trials, and we searched online trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of oral treatments in participants who have a clinically diagnosed tinea pedis, confirmed by microscopy and growth of dermatophytes (fungi) in culture. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently undertook study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 trials, involving 1438 participants. The 2 trials (71 participants) comparing terbinafine and griseofulvin produced a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 2.26 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 3.44) in favour of terbinafine's ability to cure infection. No significant difference was detected between terbinafine and itraconazole, fluconazole and itraconazole, fluconazole and ketoconazole, or between griseofulvin and ketoconazole, although the trials were generally small. Two trials showed that terbinafine and itraconazole were effective compared with placebo: terbinafine (31 participants, RR 24.54, 95% CI 1.57 to 384.32) and itraconazole (72 participants, RR 6.67, 95% CI 2.17 to 20.48). All drugs reported adverse effects, with gastrointestinal effects most commonly reported. Ten of the trials were published over 15 years ago, and this is reflected by the poor reporting of information from which to make a clear 'Risk of bias' assessment. Only one trial was at low risk of bias overall. The majority of the remaining trials were judged as 'unclear' risk of bias because of the lack of clear statements with respect to methods of generating the randomisation sequence and allocation concealment. More trials achieved blinding of participants and personnel than blinding of the outcome assessors, which was again poorly reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that terbinafine is more effective than griseofulvin, and terbinafine and itraconazole are more effective than no treatment. In order to produce more reliable data, a rigorous evaluation of different drug therapies needs to be undertaken with larger sample sizes to ensure they are large enough to show any real difference when two treatments are being compared. It is also important to continue to follow up and collect data, preferably for six months after the end of the intervention period, to establish whether or not the infection recurred.

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.

Recruitment patterns in multicentre randomised trials fit more closely to Price's Law than the Pareto Principle: A review of trials funded and published by the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Programme.

OBJECTIVE: This review investigates whether the distribution of recruitment to multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) fits the "Pareto Principle", i.e. 80% of participants are recruited by 20% of sites, or Price's Law, i.e. 50% of participants are recruited by the square root of the total number of sites. METHODS: A review of HTA reports published between 2017 and 2019. RESULTS: 40 RCTs conducted face-to-face recruitment, five recruited via mail-outs and one used both methods. For face-to-face recruitment (n = 41 studies), 80% of participants were recruited by the top recruiting 42.6% of sites; for mail-out methods (n = 6 studies) this was 52.0%. From the square root of sites, 51.3% and 31.8% of participants were recruited for the two recruitment approaches, respectively. Specifically, 3 (7.3%, 95% CI 2.5% to 19.4%) and 20 (48.8%, 95% CI 34.3% to 63.5%) RCTs that recruited face-to-face followed Pareto Principle and Price's Law, respectively. One mail-out recruitment study followed one of these principles, Price's Law. Chief Investigator (CI) sites (n = 24) in face-to-face recruitment studies recruited 18.1% of participants. CONCLUSION: Face-to-face recruitment to HTA-funded RCTs fits more closely to Price's Law than the Pareto Principle, with the CI's site recruiting nearly a fifth of participants. Since we focussed on HTA-funded RCTs with ≥9 recruiting sites and for which the recruitment method and number recruited by site were known, our findings are limited in their generalisability. However, this trend could be used as a guide to aid in estimating how many sites RCTs need. More accurate estimation may prevent the need for recruitment extensions.

Communication interventions for medically unexplained symptom conditions in general practice: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) account for 3-50% of all General Practitioner (GP) consultations and are difficult to diagnose due to their unknown aetiology, symptom overlap between conditions, and lack of effective treatment options. MUS patients' and primary care clinicians frequently face challenges during consultations, with GPs reporting difficulty identifying and classifying MUS, whilst patients report stigma and feeling illegitimised by clinicians. Communication interventions have been proposed as a method to facilitate the doctor-patient relationship and aid the management of MUS. AIM: This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of primary care based communication interventions at improving MUS patients' and/or clinician outcomes. METHOD: Four electronic databases were searched from inception to November 2021. Two researchers independently undertook screening, data extraction and quality appraisal. Given the heterogeneous nature of the studies identified, narrative syntheses were conducted, along with meta-analyses where possible to pool data. RESULTS: 9 papers from 10 Randomised Controlled Trials were included. The included studies displayed considerable risk of bias and poor reporting. Some limited evidence suggests that communication interventions tailored to MUS and not following a pre-specified model (such as reattribution) could improve pain, mental and physical functioning whilst reattribution training may improve clinician confidence treating MUS. However, methodological limitations mean that these findings should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSION: A range of interventions for improving communication with MUS patients in primary care have been evaluated. However, the heterogeneous nature of existing evidence and poor study quality mean we cannot conclude whether these interventions are effective. Before considering further randomised controlled trials researchers should focus on developing a new or modified communication intervention for MUS patients and their clinicians. TRAIL REGISTRATION: The systematic review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (registration record CRD42020206437).

A review found small variable blocking schemes may not protect against selection bias in randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: Blocking is associated with prediction of the allocation sequence and subversion. This paper explores if blocking strategies lead to an increase in baseline age heterogeneity (a marker for potential subversion) and, whether the use of blocking is changing over time. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS: The British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine were hand searched to identify open RCTs published in January between 2001 and 2020. To explore heterogeneity of baseline age meta-analyses were performed on trials implementing blocking, minimization, and simple randomization. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-nine open RCTs were identified: nine (5.0%) undertook simple randomization, 104 (58.1%) blocking, 25 (13.9%) minimization, and one (0.6%) both. Baseline age heterogeneity of 24% (P= 0.02) was observed in all trials implementing blocking, 62% (P = 0.001) in trials implementing a fixed block of four, 40% (P = 0.07) implementing variable blocks including a 2 and 0% for both simple randomization and minimization. Small block sizes are implemented in modern trials. CONCLUSION: Variable block sizes including two are associated with subversion and should not be implemented. If center only stratification is necessary, it should be used alongside larger blocking schemes. Authors should consider alternative methods to restrict randomization.

The effectiveness of behaviour change interventions delivered by non-dental health workers in promoting children's oral health: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Dental caries is the most common preventable childhood condition. Non-dental professionals and health workers are often well placed to support parents in adopting positive oral health behaviours for their children. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of behaviour change interventions and their individual component behaviour change techniques (BCTs), that were delivered by non-dental professionals and health workers. METHODS: A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, TRoPHI and PROQUEST from inception until March 2021 was conducted. Randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies for improving oral health outcomes in children were included. Quality assessment was carried out using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and ROBINS-I tool. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's regression intercept. Effect sizes were estimated as standardised mean difference (SMD) and odds ratio/risk ratio for proportions. Meta-analyses were performed for studies reporting mean decayed, missing, filled surfaces (dmfs) and mean decayed, missing, filled, teeth (dmft) indices. Behaviour change technique coding was performed using behaviour change technique taxonomy v1 (BCTTv1). RESULTS: Out of the 9,101 records retrieved, 36 studies were included with 28 showing a significant effect either in clinical and/or behavioural/knowledge outcomes. Most studies (n = 21) were of poor methodological quality. The pooled SMD for caries experience showed statistically significant result for caries prevention at surface level -0.15 (95% CI -0.25, -0.04) and at the tooth level -0.24 (95% CI -0.42, -0.07). In 28 effective interventions, 27 individual BCTs were identified and the most frequently used were: "Instructions on how to perform the behaviour" and "Information about health consequences". CONCLUSION: There is low quality of evidence suggesting non-dental professionals and health workers may help improve oral health outcomes for children. To confirm these findings, further high-quality studies incorporating a variety of BCTs in their interventions for adoption of good oral health behaviours are needed.

Scaling up Quality Improvement for Surgical Teams (QIST)-avoiding surgical site infection and anaemia at the time of surgery: a cluster randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives to introduce change in the NHS.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this trial was to assess the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives to implement large-scale change in the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK, specifically for improving outcomes in patients undergoing primary, elective total hip or knee replacement. METHODS: We undertook a two-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the roll-out of two preoperative pathways: methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) decolonisation (infection arm) and anaemia screening and treatment (anaemia arm). NHS Trusts are public sector organisations that provide healthcare within a geographical area. NHS Trusts (n = 41) in England providing primary, elective total hip and knee replacements, but that did not have a preoperative anaemia screening or MSSA decolonisation pathway in place, were randomised to one of the two parallel collaboratives. Collaboratives took place from May 2018 to November 2019. Twenty-seven Trusts completed the trial (11 anaemia, 16 infection). Outcome data were collected for procedures performed between November 2018 and November 2019. Co-primary outcomes were perioperative blood transfusion (within 7 days of surgery) and deep surgical site infection (SSI) caused by MSSA (within 90 days post-surgery) for the anaemia and infection trial arms, respectively. Secondary outcomes were deep and superficial SSIs (any organism), length of hospital stay, critical care admissions and unplanned readmissions. Process measures included the proportion of eligible patients receiving each preoperative initiative. RESULTS: There were 19,254 procedures from 27 NHS Trusts included in the results (6324 from 11 Trusts in the anaemia arm, 12,930 from 16 Trusts in the infection arm). There were no improvements observed for blood transfusion (anaemia arm 183 (2.9%); infection arm 302 (2.3%) transfusions; adjusted odds ratio 1.20, 95% CI 0.52-2.75, p = 0.67) or MSSA deep SSI (anaemia arm 8 (0.13%); infection arm 18 (0.14%); adjusted odds ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.42-2.46, p = 0.98). There were no significant improvements in any secondary outcome. This is despite process measures showing the preoperative pathways were implemented for 73.7% and 61.1% of eligible procedures in the infection and anaemia arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvement collaboratives did not result in improved patient outcomes in this trial; however, there was some evidence they may support successful implementation of new preoperative pathways in the NHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered on 15 February 2018, ISRCTN11085475.

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.

Database recruitment: a solution to poor recruitment in randomized trials?

BACKGROUND: Achieving sample size is imperative to obtaining sufficient power to detect potential effects in health care research, yet many research studies are prone to under-recruitment. Not only does this create problems with power but also it contributes to research extensions, additional costs and delayed results. To combat this problem, one increasingly used technique is database recruitment, a method of searching the electronic medical records system for potential research participants. OBJECTIVE: We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of identifying potential research participants using database recruitment with particular reference to primary care. CONCLUSION: Database recruitment is a relatively simple and affordable means to recruit large numbers of patients in a timely manner; however, it is not without limitations.

Randomised study within a trial (SWAT) to evaluate personalised versus standard text message prompts for increasing trial participant response to postal questionnaires (PROMPTS).

BACKGROUND: Use of a person's name in a text message has been shown to be effective in instigating behaviour change. We evaluated the effectiveness of a personalised text message (including the recipient's name) versus a standardised text message for prompting a response from trial participants to complete and return postal follow-up questionnaires. METHODS: Using a randomised study within a trial (SWAT) embedded within the host GRASP (Getting it Right: Addressing Shoulder Pain) trial, participants who provided a mobile telephone number were randomised (1:1) by a central computer system to receive either (1) a personalised text message which included their name or (2) a standard text message. Text messages were sent by the trial office on the same day as the 6-month GRASP follow-up questionnaire. The primary outcome was questionnaire response rate, defined as the proportion of 6-month GRASP follow-up questionnaires returned by participants. Secondary outcomes included time to response, the proportion of participants sent a reminder follow-up questionnaire, and cost. RESULTS: Between March 2017 and May 2019 (recruitment period for GRASP trial), 618 participants were randomised to a personalised (n = 309) or standard (n = 309) text message and all were included in the analysis. The overall questionnaire response rate was 87% (n = 537/618); 90% (n = 277/309) of participants responded in the personalised text message group compared to 84% (n = 260/309) in the standard text message group (relative risk (RR) 1.07; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13). Participants randomised to receive the personalised text message were more likely to return their initial postal questionnaire than those who received the standard text message (n = 185/309; 60% vs. n = 160/309; 52%) (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.33); this represents an absolute percentage difference between intervention groups of 8%. Post hoc subgroup analysis showed that males under 65 years were the group most likely to return their initial questionnaire if they received a personalised text message. CONCLUSION: Overall, participants who received a personalised text message were more likely to return their questionnaire than those who received the standard text message. TRIAL REGISTRATION: GRASP Trial ISRCTN16539266 ; SWAT Repository ID 35.