Search

Background: There are few effective interventions for dementia. Aim: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an intervention to promote self-management, independence and self-efficacy in people with early-stage dementia. Objectives: To undertake a randomised controlled trial of the Journeying through Dementia intervention compared with usual care, conduct an internal pilot testing feasibility, assess intervention delivery fidelity and undertake a qualitative exploration of participants’ experiences. Design: A pragmatic two-arm individually randomised trial analysed by intention to treat. Participants: A total of 480 people diagnosed with mild dementia, with capacity to make informed decisions, living in the community and not participating in other studies, and 350 supporters whom they identified, from 13 locations in England, took part. Intervention: Those randomised to the Journeying through Dementia intervention (n = 241) were invited to take part in 12 weekly facilitated groups and four one-to-one sessions delivered in the community by secondary care staff, in addition to their usual care. The control group (n = 239) received usual care. Usual care included drug treatment, needs assessment and referral to appropriate services. Usual care at each site was recorded. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was Dementia-Related Quality of Life score at 8 months post randomisation, with higher scores representing higher quality of life. Secondary outcomes included resource use, psychological well-being, self-management, instrumental activities of daily living and health-related quality of life. Randomisation and blinding: Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio. Staff conducting outcome assessments were blinded. Data sources: Outcome measures were administered in participants’ homes at baseline and at 8 and 12 months post randomisation. Interviews were conducted with participants, participating carers and interventionalists. Results: The mean Dementia-Related Quality of Life score at 8 months was 93.3 (standard deviation 13.0) in the intervention arm (n = 191) and 91.9 (standard deviation 14.6) in the control arm (n = 197), with a difference in means of 0.9 (95% confidence interval –1.2 to 3.0; p = 0.380) after adjustment for covariates. This effect size (0.9) was less than the 4 points defined as clinically meaningful. For other outcomes, a difference was found only for Diener’s Flourishing Scale (adjusted mean difference 1.2, 95% confidence interval 0.1 to 2.3), in favour of the intervention (i.e. in a positive direction). The Journeying through Dementia intervention cost £608 more than usual care (95% confidence interval £105 to £1179) and had negligible difference in quality-adjusted life-years (–0.003, 95% confidence interval –0.044 to 0.038). Therefore, the Journeying through Dementia intervention had a mean incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of –£202,857 (95% confidence interval –£534,733 to £483,739); however, there is considerable uncertainty around this. Assessed fidelity was good. Interviewed participants described receiving some benefit and a minority benefited greatly. However, negative aspects were also raised by a minority. Seventeen per cent of participants in the intervention arm and 15% of participants in the control arm experienced at least one serious adverse event. None of the serious adverse events were classified as related to the intervention. Limitations: Study limitations include recruitment of an active population, delivery challenges and limitations of existing outcome measures. Conclusions: The Journeying through Dementia programme is not clinically effective, is unlikely to be cost-effective and cannot be recommended in its existing format. Future work: Research should focus on the creation of new outcome measures to assess well-being in dementia and on using elements of the intervention, such as enabling enactment in the community. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN17993825. 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. 26, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Ultrasonography has been the mainstay of antenatal screening programmes in the UK for many years. Technical factors and physical limitations may result in suboptimal images that can lead to incorrect diagnoses and inaccurate counselling and prognostic information being given to parents. Previous studies suggest that the addition of in utero magnetic resonance imaging (iuMRI) may improve diagnostic accuracy for fetal brain abnormalities. These studies have limitations, including a lack of an outcome reference diagnosis (ORD), which means that improvements could not be assessed accurately. Objectives: To assess the diagnostic impact, acceptability and cost consequence of iuMRI among fetuses with a suspected fetal brain abnormality. Design: A pragmatic, prospective, multicentre, cohort study with a health economics analysis and a sociological substudy. Setting: Sixteen UK fetal medicine centres. Participants: Pregnant women aged ≥ 16 years carrying a fetus (at least 18 weeks’ gestation) with a suspected brain abnormality detected on ultrasonography. Interventions: Participants underwent iuMRI and the findings were reported to their referring fetal medicine clinician. Main outcome measures: Pregnancy outcome was followed up and an ORD from postnatal imaging or postmortem autopsy/imaging collected when available. Developmental data from the Bayley Scales of Infant Development and questionnaires were collected from the surviving infants aged 2–3 years. Data on the management of the pregnancy before and after the iuMRI were collected to inform the economic evaluation. Two surveys collected data on patient acceptability of iuMRI and qualitative interviews with participants and health professionals were undertaken. Results: The primary analysis consisted of 570 fetuses. The absolute diagnostic accuracies of ultrasonography and iuMRI were 68% and 93%, respectively [a difference of 25%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 21% to 29%]. The difference between ultrasonography and iuMRI increased with gestational age. In the 18–23 weeks group, the figures were 70% for ultrasonography and 92% for iuMRI (difference of 23%, 95% CI 18% to 27%); in the ≥ 24 weeks group, the figures were 65% for ultrasonography and 94% for iuMRI (difference of 29%, 95% CI 23% to 36%). Patient acceptability was high, with at least 95% of respondents stating that they would have iuMRI again in a similar situation. Health professional interviews suggested that iuMRI was acceptable to clinicians and that iuMRI was useful as an adjunct to ultrasonography, but not as a replacement. Across a range of scenarios, iuMRI resulted in additional costs compared with ultrasonography alone. The additional cost was consistently

Background: There is currently insufficient evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychological therapies for post-stroke depression. Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of undertaking a definitive trial to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural activation (BA) compared with usual stroke care for treating post-stroke depression. Design: Parallel-group, feasibility, multicentre, randomised controlled trial with nested qualitative research and a health economic evaluation. Setting: Acute and community stroke services in three sites in England. Participants: Community-dwelling adults 3 months to 5 years post stroke who are depressed, as determined by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) or the Visual Analogue Mood Scales ‘Sad’ item. Exclusions: patients who are blind and/or deaf, have dementia, are unable to communicate in English, do not have mental capacity to consent, are receiving treatment for depression at the time of stroke onset or are currently receiving psychological intervention. Randomisation and blinding: Participants were randomised (1 : 1 ratio) to BA or usual stroke care. Randomisation was conducted using a computer-generated list with random permuted blocks of varying sizes, stratified by site. Participants and therapists were aware of the allocation, but outcome assessors were blind. Interventions: The intervention arm received up to 15 sessions of BA over 4 months. BA aims to improve mood by increasing people’s level of enjoyable or valued activities. The control arm received usual care only. Main outcome measures: Primary feasibility outcomes concerned feasibility of recruitment to the main trial, acceptability of research procedures and measures, appropriateness of baseline and outcome measures, retention of participants and potential value of conducting the definitive trial. Secondary feasibility outcomes concerned the delivery of the intervention. The primary clinical outcome 6 months post randomisation was the PHQ-9. Secondary clinical outcomes were Stroke Aphasic Depression Questionnaire – Hospital version, Nottingham Leisure Questionnaire, Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living, Carer Strain Index, EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version and health-care resource use questionnaire. Results: Forty-eight participants were recruited in 27 centre-months of recruitment, at a recruitment rate of 1.8 participants per centre per month. The 25 participants randomised to receive BA attended a mean of 8.5 therapy sessions [standard deviation (SD) 4.4 therapy sessions]; 23 participants were allocated to usual care. Outcome assessments were completed by 39 (81%) participants (BA, n = 18; usual care, n = 21). Mean PHQ-9 scores at 6-month follow-up were 10.1 points (SD 6.9 points) and 14.4 points (SD 5.1 points) in the BA and control groups, respectively, a difference of –3.8 (95% confidence interval –6.9 to –0.6) after adjusting for baseline PHQ-9 score and centre, representing a reduction in depression in the BA arm. Therapy was delivered as intended. BA was acceptable to participants, carers and therapists. Value-of-information analysis indicates that the benefits of conducting a definitive trial would be likely to outweigh the costs. It is estimated that a sample size of between 580 and 623 participants would be needed for a definitive trial. Limitations: Target recruitment was not achieved, although we identified methods to improve recruitment. Conclusions: The Behavioural Activation Therapy for Depression after Stroke trial was feasible with regard to the majority of outcomes. The outstanding issue is whether or not a sufficient number of participants could be recruited within a reasonable time frame for a definitive trial. Future work is required to identify whether or not there are sufficient sites that are able to deliver the services required for a definitive trial. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12715175. Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 47. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Asthma episodes and deaths are known to be seasonal. A number of reports have shown peaks in asthma episodes in school-aged children associated with the return to school following the summer vacation. A fall in prescription collection in the month of August has been observed, and was associated with an increase in the number of unscheduled contacts after the return to school in September. Objective: The primary objective of the study was to assess whether or not a NHS-delivered public health intervention reduces the September peak in unscheduled medical contacts. Design: Cluster randomised trial, with the unit of randomisation being 142 NHS general practices, and trial-based economic evaluation. Setting: Primary care. Intervention: A letter sent (n = 70 practices) in July from their general practitioner (GP) to parents/carers of school-aged children with asthma to remind them of the importance of taking their medication, and to ensure that they have sufficient medication prior to the start of the new school year in September. The control group received usual care. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of children aged 5–16 years who had an unscheduled medical contact in September 2013. Supporting end points included the proportion of children who collected prescriptions in August 2013 and unscheduled contacts through the following 12 months. Economic end points were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and costs from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. Results: There is no evidence of effect in terms of unscheduled contacts in September. Among children aged 5–16 years, the odds ratio (OR) was 1.09 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.25] against the intervention. The intervention did increase the proportion of children collecting a prescription in August (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.64) as well as scheduled contacts in the same month (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.52). For the wider time intervals (September–December 2013 and September–August 2014), there is weak evidence of the intervention reducing unscheduled contacts. The intervention did not reduce unscheduled care in September, although it succeeded in increasing the proportion of children collecting prescriptions in August as well as having scheduled contacts in the same month. These unscheduled contacts in September could be a result of the intervention, as GPs may have wanted to see patients before issuing a prescription. The economic analysis estimated a high probability that the intervention was cost-saving, for baseline-adjusted costs, across both base-case and sensitivity analyses. There was no increase in QALYs. Limitation: The use of routine data led to uncertainty in the coding of medical contacts. The uncertainty was mitigated by advice from a GP adjudication panel. Conclusions: The intervention did not reduce unscheduled care in September, although it succeeded in increasing the proportion of children both collecting prescriptions and having scheduled contacts in August. After September there is weak evidence in favour of the intervention. The intervention had a favourable impact on costs but did not demonstrate any impact on QALYs. The results of the trial indicate that further work is required on assessing and understanding adherence, both in terms of using routine data to make quantitative assessments, and through additional qualitative interviews with key stakeholders such as practice nurses, GPs and a wider group of children with asthma. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03000938. Funding details: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 93. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

Background: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a neurodegenerative disease resulting in death, usually from respiratory failure, within 2–3 years of symptom onset. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is a treatment that when given to patients in respiratory failure leads to improved survival and quality of life. Diaphragm pacing (DP), using the NeuRx/4® diaphragm pacing system (DPS)™ (Synapse Biomedical, Oberlin, OH, USA), is a new technique that may offer additional or alternative benefits to patients with ALS who are in respiratory failure. Objective: The Diaphragm Pacing in patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (DiPALS) trial evaluated the effect of DP on survival over the study duration in patients with ALS with respiratory failure. Design: The DiPALS trial was a multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial incorporating health economic analyses and a qualitative longitudinal substudy. Participants: Eligible participants had a diagnosis of ALS (ALS laboratory-supported probable, clinically probable or clinically definite according to the World Federation of Neurology revised El Escorial criteria), had been stabilised on riluzole for 30 days, were aged ≥ 18 years and were in respiratory failure. We planned to recruit 108 patients from seven UK-based specialist ALS or respiratory centres. Allocation was performed using 1 : 1 non-deterministic minimisation. Interventions: Participants were randomised to either standard care (NIV alone) or standard care (NIV) plus DP using the NeuRX/4 DPS. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was overall survival, defined as the time from randomisation to death from any cause. Secondary outcomes were patient quality of life [assessed by European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, three levels (EQ-5D-3L), Short Form questionnaire-36 items and Sleep Apnoea Quality of Life Index questionnaire]; carer quality of life (EQ-5D-3L and Caregiver Burden Inventory); cost–utility analysis and health-care resource use; tolerability and adverse events. Acceptability and attitudes to DP were assessed in a qualitative substudy. Results: In total, 74 participants were randomised into the trial and analysed, 37 participants to NIV plus pacing and 37 to standard care, before the Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee advised initial suspension of recruitment (December 2013) and subsequent discontinuation of pacing (on safety grounds) in all patients (June 2014). Follow-up assessments continued until the planned end of the study in December 2014. The median survival (interquartile range) was 22.5 months (lower quartile 11.8 months; upper quartile not reached) in the NIV arm and 11.0 months (6.7 to 17.0 months) in the NIV plus pacing arm, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.27 (95% confidence interval 1.22 to 4.25; p = 0.01). Conclusions: Diaphragmatic pacing should not be used as a routine treatment for patients with ALS in respiratory failure. Future work: It may be that certain population subgroups benefit from DP. We are unable to explain the mechanism behind the excess mortality in the pacing arm, something the small trial size cannot help address. Future research should investigate the mechanism by which harm or benefit occurs further. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN53817913. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 45. See the HTA programme website for further project information. Additional funding was provided by the Motor Neurone Disease Association of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Background: Acute bronchiolitis is the most common cause of hospitalisation in infancy. Supportive care and oxygen are the cornerstones of management. A Cochrane review concluded that the use of nebulised 3% hypertonic saline (HS) may significantly reduce the duration of hospitalisation. Objective: To test the hypothesis that HS reduces the time to when infants were assessed as being fit for discharge, defined as in air with saturations of > 92% for 6 hours, by 25%. Design: Parallel-group, pragmatic randomised controlled trial, cost–utility analysis and systematic review. Setting: Ten UK hospitals. Participants: Infants with acute bronchiolitis requiring oxygen therapy were allocated within 4 hours of admission. Interventions: Supportive care with oxygen as required, minimal handling and fluid administration as appropriate to the severity of the disease, 3% nebulised HS every ± 6 hours. Main outcome measures: The trial primary outcome was time until the infant met objective discharge criteria. Secondary end points included time to discharge and adverse events. The costs analysed related to length of stay (LoS), readmissions, nebulised saline and other NHS resource use. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated using an existing utility decrement derived for hospitalisation in children, together with the time spent in hospital in the trial. Data sources: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and other databases from inception or from 2010 onwards, searched ClinicalTrials.gov and other registries and hand-searched Chest, Paediatrics and Journal of Paediatrics to January 2015. Review methods: We included randomised/quasi-randomised trials which compared HS versus saline (± adjunct treatment) or no treatment. We used a fixed-effects model to combine mean differences for LoS and assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. Results: The trial randomised 158 infants to HS (n = 141 analysed) and 159 to standard care (n = 149 analysed). There was no difference between the two arms in the time to being declared fit for discharge [median 76.6 vs. 75.9 hours, hazard ratio (HR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.20] or to actual discharge (median 88.5 vs. 88.7 hours, HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.23). There was no difference in adverse events. One infant developed bradycardia with desaturation associated with HS. Mean hospital costs were £2595 and £2727 for the control and intervention groups, respectively (p = 0.657). Incremental QALYs were 0.0000175 (p = 0.757). An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £7.6M per QALY gained was not appreciably altered by sensitivity analyses. The systematic review comprised 15 trials (n = 1922) including our own. HS reduced the mean LoS by –0.36 days (95% CI –0.50 to –0.22 days). High levels of heterogeneity (I2 = 78%) indicate that the result should be treated cautiously. Conclusions: In this trial, HS had no clinical benefit on LoS or readiness for discharge and was not a cost-effective treatment for acute bronchiolitis. Claims that HS achieves small reductions in LoS must be treated with scepticism. Future work: Well-powered randomised controlled trials of high-flow oxygen are needed. Study registration: This study is registered as NCT01469845 and CRD42014007569. Funding details: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 66. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

BACKGROUND:It can be argued that adaptive designs are underused in clinical research. We have explored concerns related to inadequate reporting of such trials, which may influence their uptake. Through a careful examination of the literature, we evaluated the standards of reporting of group sequential (GS) randomised controlled trials, one form of a confirmatory adaptive design. METHODS:We undertook a systematic review, by searching Ovid MEDLINE from the 1st January 2001 to 23rd September 2014, supplemented with trials from an audit study. We included parallel group, confirmatory, GS trials that were prospectively designed using a Frequentist approach. Eligible trials were examined for compliance in their reporting against the CONSORT 2010 checklist. In addition, as part of our evaluation, we developed a supplementary checklist to explicitly capture group sequential specific reporting aspects, and investigated how these are currently being reported. RESULTS:Of the 284 screened trials, 68(24%) were eligible. Most trials were published in "high impact" peer-reviewed journals. Examination of trials established that 46(68%) were stopped early, predominantly either for futility or efficacy. Suboptimal reporting compliance was found in general items relating to: access to full trials protocols; methods to generate randomisation list(s); details of randomisation concealment, and its implementation. Benchmarking against the supplementary checklist, GS aspects were largely inadequately reported. Only 3(7%) trials which stopped early reported use of statistical bias correction. Moreover, 52(76%) trials failed to disclose methods used to minimise the risk of operational bias, due to the knowledge or leakage of interim results. Occurrence of changes to trial methods and outcomes could not be determined in most trials, due to inaccessible protocols and amendments. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:There are issues with the reporting of GS trials, particularly those specific to the conduct of interim analyses. Suboptimal reporting of bias correction methods could potentially imply most GS trials stopping early are giving biased results of treatment effects. As a result, research consumers may question credibility of findings to change practice when trials are stopped early. These issues could be alleviated through a CONSORT extension. Assurance of scientific rigour through transparent adequate reporting is paramount to the credibility of findings from adaptive trials. Our systematic literature search was restricted to one database due to resource constraints.

Abstract Background Many clinical trial procedures were often undertaken in-person prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has resulted in adaptations to these procedures to enable trials to continue. The aim of this study was to understand whether the adaptations made to clinical trials by UK Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) during the pandemic have the potential to improve the efficiency of trials post-pandemic. Methods This was a mixed methods study, initially involving an online survey administered to all registered UK CTUs to identify studies that had made adaptations due to the pandemic. Representatives from selected studies were qualitatively interviewed to explore the adaptations made and their potential to improve the efficiency of future trials. A literature review was undertaken to locate published evidence concerning the investigated adaptations. The findings from the interviews were reviewed by a group of CTU and patient representatives within a workshop, where discussions focused on the potential of the adaptations to improve the efficiency of future trials. Results Forty studies were identified by the survey. Fourteen studies were selected and fifteen CTU staff were interviewed about the adaptations. The workshop included 15 CTU and 3 patient representatives. Adaptations were not seen as leading to direct efficiency savings for CTUs. However, three adaptations may have the potential to directly improve efficiencies for trial sites and participants beyond the pandemic: a split remote-first eligibility assessment, recruitment outside the NHS via a charity, and remote consent. There was a lack of published evidence to support the former two adaptations, however, remote consent is widely supported in the literature. Other identified adaptations may benefit by improving flexibility for the participant. Barriers to using these adaptations include the impact on scientific validity, limitations in the role of the CTU, and participant’s access to technology. Conclusions Three adaptations (a split remote-first eligibility assessment, recruitment outside the NHS via a charity, and remote consent) have the potential to improve clinical trials but only one (remote consent) is supported by evidence. These adaptations could be tested in future co-ordinated ‘studies within a trial’ (SWAT).

Abstract Background Understanding intervention delivery as intended, particularly in complex interventions, should be underpinned by good quality fidelity assessment. We present the findings from a fidelity assessment embedded as part of a trial of a complex community-based psychosocial intervention, Journeying through Dementia (JtD). The intervention was designed to equip individuals with the knowledge and skills to successfully self-manage, maintain independence, and live well with dementia and involves both group and individual sessions. The methodological challenges of developing a conceptual framework for fidelity assessment and creating and applying purposely designed measures derived from this framework are discussed to inform future studies. Methods A conceptual fidelity framework was created out of core components of the intervention (including the intervention manual and training for delivery), associated trial protocols and pre-defined fidelity standards and criteria against which intervention delivery and receipt could be measured. Fidelity data collection tools were designed and piloted for reliability and usability. Data collection in four selected sites (fidelity sites) was via non-participatory observations of the group aspect of the intervention, attendance registers and interventionist (facilitator and supervisor) self-report. Results Interventionists from all four fidelity sites attended intervention training. The majority of group participants at the four sites (71%) received the therapeutic dose of 10 out of 16 sessions. Weekly group meeting attendance (including at ‘out of venue’ sessions) was excellent at 80%. Additionally, all but one individual session was attended by the participants who completed the intervention. It proved feasible to create tools derived from the fidelity framework to assess in-venue group aspects of this complex intervention. Results of fidelity assessment of the observed groups were good with substantial inter-rater reliability between researchers KAPPA 0.68 95% CI (0.58–0.78). Self-report by interventionists concurred with researcher assessments. Conclusions There was good fidelity to training and delivery of the group aspect of the intervention at four sites. However, the methodological challenges of assessing all aspects of this complex intervention could not be overcome due to practicalities, assessment methods and ethical considerations. Questions remain regarding how we can assess fidelity in community-based complex interventions without impacting upon intervention or trial delivery. Trial registration ISRCTN17993825 .

Abstract Background When designing a randomised controlled trial (RCT), an important consideration is the sample size required. This is calculated from several components; one of which is the target difference. This study aims to review the currently reported methods of elicitation of the target difference as well as to quantify the target differences used in Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-funded trials. Methods Trials were identified from the National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment journal. A total of 177 RCTs published between 2006 and 2016 were assessed for eligibility. Eligibility was established by the design of the trial and the quality of data available. The trial designs were parallel-group, superiority RCTs with a continuous primary endpoint. Data were extracted and the standardised anticipated and observed effect size estimates were calculated. Exclusion criteria was based on trials not providing enough detail in the sample size calculation and results, and trials not being of parallel-group, superiority design. Results A total of 107 RCTs were included in the study from 102 reports. The most commonly reported method for effect size derivation was a review of evidence and use of previous research (52.3%). This was common across all clinical areas. The median standardised target effect size was 0.30 (interquartile range: 0.20–0.38), with the median standardised observed effect size 0.11 (IQR 0.05–0.29). The maximum anticipated and observed effect sizes were 0.76 and 1.18, respectively. Only two trials had anticipated target values above 0.60. Conclusion The most commonly reported method of elicitation of the target effect size is previous published research. The average target effect size was 0.3. A clear distinction between the target difference and the minimum clinically important difference is recommended when designing a trial. Transparent explanation of target difference elicitation is advised, with multiple methods including a review of evidence and opinion-seeking advised as the more optimal methods for effect size quantification.