Search

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are valuable for shared decision making and research. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires used to measure PROs, such as health-related quality of life (HRQL). Although core outcome sets for trials and clinical practice have been developed separately, they, as well as other initiatives, recommend different PROs and PROMs. In research and clinical practice, different PROMs are used (some generic, some disease-specific), which measure many different things. This is a threat to the validity of research and clinical findings in the field of diabetes. In this narrative review, we aim to provide recommendations for the selection of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs for people with diabetes for use in clinical practice and research. Based on a general conceptual framework of PROs, we suggest that relevant PROs to measure in people with diabetes are: disease-specific symptoms (e.g. worries about hypoglycaemia and diabetes distress), general symptoms (e.g. fatigue and depression), functional status, general health perceptions and overall quality of life. Generic PROMs such as the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0), or Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures could be considered to measure commonly relevant PROs, supplemented with disease-specific PROMs where needed. However, none of the existing diabetes-specific PROM scales has been sufficiently validated, although the Diabetes Symptom Self-Care Inventory (DSSCI) for measuring diabetes-specific symptoms and the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS) and Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) for measuring distress showed sufficient content validity. Standardisation and use of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs can help inform people with diabetes about the expected course of disease and treatment, for shared decision making, to monitor outcomes and to improve healthcare. We recommend further validation studies of diabetes-specific PROMs that have sufficient content validity for measuring disease-specific symptoms and consider generic item banks developed based on item response theory for measuring commonly relevant PROs. Graphical Abstract

Health consequences that persist beyond the acute infection phase of COVID-19, termed post-COVID-19 condition (also commonly known as long COVID), vary widely and represent a growing global health challenge. Research on post-COVID-19 condition is expanding but, at present, no agreement exists on the health outcomes that should be measured in people living with the condition. To address this gap, we conducted an international consensus study, which included a comprehensive literature review and classification of outcomes for post-COVID-19 condition that informed a two-round online modified Delphi process followed by an online consensus meeting to finalise the core outcome set (COS). 1535 participants from 71 countries were involved, with 1148 individuals participating in both Delphi rounds. Eleven outcomes achieved consensus for inclusion in the final COS: fatigue; pain; post-exertion symptoms; work or occupational and study changes; survival; and functioning, symptoms, and conditions for each of cardiovascular, respiratory, nervous system, cognitive, mental health, and physical outcomes. Recovery was included a priori because it was a relevant outcome that was part of a previously published COS on COVID-19. The next step in this COS development exercise will be to establish the instruments that are most appropriate to measure these core outcomes. This international consensus-based COS should provide a framework for standardised assessment of adults with post-COVID-19 condition, aimed at facilitating clinical care and research worldwide.

Background Addressing recruitment and retention challenges in trials is a key priority for methods research, but navigating the literature is difficult and time-consuming. In 2016, ORRCA ( www.orrca.org.uk ) launched a free, searchable database of recruitment research that has been widely accessed and used to support the update of systematic reviews and the selection of recruitment strategies for clinical trials. ORRCA2 aims to create a similar database to map the growing volume and importance of retention research. Methods Searches of Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection and the Cochrane Library, restricted to English language and publications up to the end of 2017. Hand searches of key systematic reviews were undertaken and randomised evaluations of recruitment interventions within the ORRCA database on 1 October 2020 were also reviewed for any secondary retention outcomes. Records were screened by title and abstract before obtaining the full text of potentially relevant articles. Studies reporting or evaluating strategies, methods and study designs to improve retention within healthcare research were eligible. Case reports describing retention challenges or successes and studies evaluating participant reported reasons for withdrawal or losses were also included. Studies assessing adherence to treatments, attendance at appointments outside of research and statistical analysis methods for missing data were excluded. Eligible articles were categorised into one of the following evidence types: randomised evaluations, non-randomised evaluations, application of retention strategies without evaluation and observations of factors affecting retention. Articles were also mapped against a retention domain framework. Additional data were extracted on research outcomes, methods and host study context. Results Of the 72,904 abstracts screened, 4,364 full texts were obtained, and 1,167 articles were eligible. Of these, 165 (14%) were randomised evaluations, 99 (8%) non-randomised evaluations, 319 (27%) strategies without evaluation and 584 (50%) observations of factors affecting retention. Eighty-four percent (n = 979) of studies assessed the numbers of participants retained, 27% (n = 317) assessed demographic differences between retained and lost participants, while only 4% (n = 44) assessed the cost of retention strategies. The most frequently reported domains within the 165 studies categorised as ‘randomised evaluations of retention strategies’ were participant monetary incentives (32%), participant reminders and prompts (30%), questionnaire design (30%) and data collection location and method (26%). Conclusion ORRCA2 builds on the success of ORRCA extending the database to organise the growing volume of retention research. Less than 15% of articles were randomised evaluations of retention strategies. Mapping of the literature highlights several areas for future research such as the role of research sites, clinical staff and study design in enhancing retention. Future studies should also include cost–benefit analysis of retention strategies.

Background Recruitment and retention of participants are both critical for the success of trials, yet both remain significant problems. The use of incentives to target participants and trial staff has been proposed as one solution. The effects of incentives are complex and depend upon how they are designed, but these complexities are often overlooked. In this paper, we used a scoping review to ‘map’ the literature, with two aims: to develop a checklist on the design and use of incentives to support recruitment and retention in trials; and to identify key research topics for the future. Methods The scoping review drew on the existing economic theory of incentives and a structured review of the literature on the use of incentives in three healthcare settings: trials, pay for performance, and health behaviour change. We identified the design issues that need to be considered when introducing an incentive scheme to improve recruitment and retention in trials. We then reviewed both the theoretical and empirical evidence relating to each of these design issues. We synthesised the findings into a checklist to guide the design of interventions using incentives. Results The issues to consider when designing an incentive system were summarised into an eight-question checklist. The checklist covers: the current incentives and barriers operating in the system; who the incentive should be directed towards; what the incentive should be linked to; the form of incentive; the incentive size; the structure of the incentive system; the timing and frequency of incentive payouts; and the potential unintended consequences. We concluded the section on each design aspect by highlighting the gaps in the current evidence base. Conclusions Our findings highlight how complex the design of incentive systems can be, and how crucial each design choice is to overall effectiveness. The most appropriate design choice will differ according to context, and we have aimed to provide context-specific advice. Whilst all design issues warrant further research, evidence is most needed on incentives directed at recruiters, optimal incentive size, and testing of different incentive structures, particularly exploring repeat arrangements with recruiters.

Background: Multiple studies are evaluating how to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Interventions are wide ranging and include vaccines, prophylactic drugs, public health safety measures, and behavioural interventions. Heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported is leading to research waste and inefficiency, slowing worldwide identification and implementation of effective methods to prevent infection. A core outcome set (COS) for studies of interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has recently been developed, identifying infection as a critical outcome to measure. This paper examines how SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes are measured in registered COVID-19 prevention trials and considers how this can be improved. Methods: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify and review SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes in prevention trials, including the rationale for choice of outcome measurement. We included phase 3 and 4 trials of COVID-19 prevention interventions. Early phase trials and studies relating to the transmission, treatment or management of COVID-19 were excluded. Results: We identified 430 entries in the register, of which 199 unique prevention trials were included across eight settings and 12 intervention types. Fifteen (8%) trials did not include any SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes. The remaining 184 (92%) studies included a total of 268 SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes, of which 32 (17%) did not specify how infection would be measured. Testing (i.e. formal diagnostic test) as a standalone method for determining infection was used in 57 (31%) trials, whereas defining infection by symptoms alone was used in 16 (9%) trials. All other trials (n=79, 43%) included multiple infection outcomes, defined in different ways. Discussion: There is considerable variation in how SARS-CoV-2 infection is measured within and across different interventions and settings. Furthermore, few studies report the rationale for outcome selection and measurement. Better transparency and standardisation of SARS-CoV-2 infection measurement is needed for the findings from prevention trials to inform decision-making.

COVID-END: Barreto, J. M. (Jorge Otavio Maia Barreto) – Fundacao Oswaldo Cruz. Fiocruz Brasilia. Brasilia, DF, Brasil.; Al-Khateeb, S. – McMaster University. McMaster Health Forum. Hamilton, ON, Canada.; Akl, E. A. – American University of Beirut. Clinical Research Institute. Beirut, Lebanon.; Bai, Z. – Nanjing University of Science and Technology. Evidence-based Social Science and Health Research Center. Nanjing, JS, China.; Brandt, L. – MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation. Norway.; Brassey, J. – Trip Database. United Kingdom.; Boutron, I. – Universite de Paris. Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics. Paris, France.; Bullock, H.L. – McMaster University. McMaster Health Forum. RISE. Hamilton, ON, Canada.; Burke, N.N. – Cochrane Ireland. Galway, Ireland / Evidence Synthesis Ireland. Galway, Ireland; Chen, Y. –Lanzhou University. Evidence Based Medicine Centre. Lanzhou, GS , China. ; Ciurea, I. – McMaster University. McMaster Health Forum. Hamilton, ON, Canada.; Dieyi, N.U. – Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John's, N.L, Canada.; de Haan, S. – Cochrane. Heidelberglaan, Utrecht, Netherlands.; Dion, A. – Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. RISE. Ottawa, ON, Canada.; Dobbins, M. – McMaster University. National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. Hamilton, ON, Canada.; El-Jardali, F. – American University of Beirut. Knowledge to Policy (K2P) Center. Beirut, Lebanon.; Elliott, J.H. – Cochrane Australia. Melbourne, VIC, Australia. ; Florez, I.D. – University of Antioquia. Medellin, ANT, Colombia.; Gough, D. – University College London. EPPI-Centre. London, United Kingdom.; Greenhalgh, T. – University of Oxford. Interdisciplinary Research In Health Sciences Research Group. Oxford, United Kingdom.; Henry, L. – Lucy Henry Consulting. Ottawa, ON, Canada.; Iorio, A. – McMaster University. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact. Hamilton, ON, Canada.; Kamga, E.B. – Effective Basic Services (eBASE) Africa. Bamenda, Cameroon.; Kawala, B.A. – Makerere University. Africa Centre for Systematic Reviews and Knowledge Translation. Kampala, Uganda.; Kawooya, I. – Makerere University. College of Health Sciences. The Centre for Rapid Evidence Synthesis. Kampala, Uganda.; Kayongo, E. – Makerere University. College of Health Sciences. The Centre for Rapid Evidence Synthesis. Kampala, Uganda.; Kredo, T. – South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Afric. Langer, L – University of Johannesburg. Africa Centre for Evidence. Johannesburg, South Africa.; Lewin, S. – Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Cochrane EPOC. Oslo, Norway / South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa.; Lewis, S.Z. – EBQ Consulting, LLC. Austin, TX, United States.; Lockwood, C. – University of Adelaide. Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences. Joanna Briggs Institute. Adelaide, SA, Australia.; Lotfi,T. – American University of Beirut. Global Evidence Synthesis Initiative. Beirut, Lebanon / McMaster University. Health Research Methods, Evidence & Impact. Ottawa, ON, Canada.; Mavergames, C. – Germany Cochrane. Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.; McCaul, M. – Stellenbosch University. Department of Global Health. Centre for Evidence Based Health Care. Stellenbosch, South Africa.; McQuillan, R. University of Edinburgh. Usher Institute. Edinburgh, United Kingdom.; Mijumbi-Deve, R. Makerere University. College of Health Sciences. The Centre for Rapid Evidence Synthesis. Kampala, Uganda.; Moat, K.A. – McMaster University. McMaster Health Forum. Hamilton, ON, Canada.; Munn, Z. – Guidelines International Network. Scotland / University of Adelaide. Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences. Joanna Briggs Institute. Adelaide, SA, Australia.; Nakibuuka, L.S. – Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. John's, N.L, Canada.; Ndagire, R. – Makerere University. Africa Centre for Systematic Reviews and Knowledge Translation. Kampala, Uganda.; Nunan, D. – University of Oxford. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Oxford. United Kingdom.; Obuku, E.A. – Makerere University. Africa Centre for Systematic Reviews and Knowledge Translation. Kampala, Uganda.; Ocan, M. – Makerere University. Africa Centre for Systematic Reviews and Knowledge Translation. Kampala, Uganda.; Okwen, P. M. – Effective Basic Services (eBASE) Africa. Bamenda, Cameroon.; Oliver, S. R. – University College London. EPPI-Centre. London, United Kingdom.; Ooi, C.P. – Universiti Putra Malaysia. Serdang, Malaysia.; Osheroff, J. A. – Initiative COVID-19 Guidance to Action Collaborative. AHRQ evidence-based Care Transformation Support. TMIT Consulting and Chair. Rockville, MD, United States.; Rada, G. – Epistemonikos Foundation, Santiago, Chile.; Reveiz, L. - Pan American Health Organization. Washington, D.C., United States.; Roy, D. – Institut National d’Excellence en Sante et en Services Sociaux. Quebec, ON, Canada.; Smith, M. – Cochrane consumer, Canada.; Snilstveit, B. – International Initiative for Impact Evaluation. London, United Kingdom.; Stewart, L.A. – University of York. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. York, United Kingdom.; Stewart, R. – University of Johannesburg. Africa Centre for Evidence. Johannesburg, South Africa.; Sutherland, K. – Agency for Clinical Innovation. St Leonards, NSW, Australia.; Taske, N. L. – National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. London, United Kingdom.; Taylor, B.H. – Evidence Aid. Oxford, United Kingdom.; Thomas, J. – University College London. EPPI-Centre. London, United Kingdom.; Tricco, A.C. – Unity Health Toronto. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s Hospital. Toronto, ON, Canada.; Vandvik, P.O. – MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation. Norway.; Vist, G.E. – Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Oslo, Norway. ; Wangi, N.R. Makerere University. Africa Centre for Systematic Reviews and Knowledge Translation. Kampala, Uganda.; Welch, V. A. – Campbell Collaboration. Canada.; Wild, C. – European Network for Health Technology Assessment. Vienna, Austria.; Young, T. – Stellenbosch University. Department of Global Health. Centre for Evidence Based Health Care. Stellenbosch, South Africa.; Yu, X. – Lanzhou University. Evidence Based Medicine Centre. Lanzhou, GS, China.; Zhu, Y. – Lanzhou University. Evidence Based Medicine Centre. Lanzhou, GS, China.

Introduction A diverse range of outcomes is used in orthodontic research with a focus on measuring outcomes important to clinicians and little consistency in outcome selection and measurement. We aimed to develop a core outcome set for use in clinical trials of orthodontic treatment not involving cleft or orthognathic patient groups. Methods A list of outcomes measured in previous orthodontic research was identified through a scoping literature review. Additional outcomes of importance to patients were obtained using qualitative interviews and focus groups with adolescents aged 10-16 years. Rating of outcomes was carried out in a 2-round electronic Delphi process involving health care professionals and patients using a 9-point scale. A face-to-face meeting was subsequently held with stakeholders to discuss the results before refining the core outcome set. Results After triangulation, a final list of 34 outcomes grouped under 10 domains was obtained for rating in the e-Delphi surveys. Fifteen outcomes were voted “in” after the second Delphi round involving 274 participants with a further outcome being included after the consensus meeting. These were subsequently refined into a final set of 7 core outcomes, including the impact of self-perceived esthetics, alignment and/or occlusion, skeletal relationship, stability, patient-related adherence, breakages, and adverse effects on teeth or teeth-supporting structures. Conclusions A bespoke orthodontic core outcome set encompassing both clinician- and patient-focused outcomes was developed. Incorporating this is the first step into providing a more holistic assessment of the impact of treatment while allowing for meaningful comparisons and synthesis of results from individual trials.

Background Type 2 diabetes is characterised by abnormal glucose metabolism, and treatment is aimed at normalising glycaemia. Outcomes measured in clinical trials should be meaningful to patients, health care professionals and researchers, yet there is heterogeneity in the outcomes used across trials of glucose-lowering interventions. This inconsistency affects the ability to compare findings and may mean that the results have little importance to health care professionals and the patients for whom they care. The SCORE-IT study aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in all trials of glucose-lowering interventions for people with type 2 diabetes. Methods/design This study will involve three key stages in the development of a COS: (1) A list of outcomes will be identified from multiple sources, specifically registered clinical trials, online patient resources, the qualitative literature and landmark studies identified by a Study Steering Committee. (2) The list of outcomes will be scored by multiple stakeholder groups in a two-round online international Delphi survey. (3) The results of the online Delphi will be summarised and discussed at a face-to-face consensus meeting with representation from all stakeholder groups. Discussion The SCORE-IT study aims to develop an internationally relevant set of core outcomes for use in future trials of glucose-lowering interventions for type 2 diabetes. The use of a COS will improve the consistency of outcomes, allowing results of studies to be compared and combined and for new effective treatments to made available more quickly. Trial registration The COS study, of which this is a part, is registered in the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database, http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/956. Registered January 2017. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2805-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background The DAMOCLES project established a widely used Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) Charter for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Typically, within the UK, the DMC is advisory and recommends to another executive body; the Trial Steering Committee (TSC). Despite the executive role of the TSC, the CONSORT Statement does not explicitly require reporting of TSC activity, although is included as an example of good reporting. A lack of guidance on TSC reporting can impact transparency of trial oversight, ultimately leading to a misunderstanding regarding role and, subsequently, further variation in practice. This review aimed to establish reporting practice of TSC involvement in RCTs, and thus make recommendations for reporting. Methods A cohort examination identifying reporting practice was undertaken. The cohort comprised RCTs published in three leading medical journals (the British Medical Journal, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine) within 6 months in 2012 and the full NIHR HTA Monograph series. Details of TSC constitution and impact were extracted from main publications and published supplements. Results Of 415 publications, 264 were eligible. These were typical in terms of trial design. Variations in reporting between journals and monographs was notable. TSC presence was identified in approximately half of trials (n = 144), of which 109 worked alongside a DMC. No publications justified not convening a TSC. When reported, the role of the committee and examples of impact in design, conduct and analysis were summarised. Conclusions We present the first review of reporting TSC activity in the published academic literature. An absence of reporting standards with regards to TSC constitution, activity and impact on trial conduct was identified which can influence transparency of reporting trial oversight. Consistent reporting is vital for the benefits and impact of the TSC role to be understood to support adoption of this oversight structure and reduce global variations in practice. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2300-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

OBJECTIVE: To understand parents' experiences of treatment of otitis media with effusion (OME) for children with cleft palate. METHODS: Qualitative interviews with parents of 37 children who had non-syndromic cleft palate (with or without cleft lip). They were recruited from two cleft centres in northern England. Participants talked about choices, information, decision-making and satisfaction with ventilation tubes (VTs) and/or hearing aids (HAs). Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Themes were developed using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: VTs and HAs were not considered as equal treatments by interviewees, due to physical risks associated with the former and social consequences with the latter. The inequality was explained within three main themes: (1) treatment recommendations - most parents did not recall being offered options when OME was first treated; VTs tended to be presented initially followed by HAs if VTs had been inserted more than once. Treatment recommendations came from medical specialists, although participants could also be influenced by other parents' stories; (2) beliefs about mechanisms of treatments - interviewees believed VTs could address the underlying cause of OME by draining fluid. Some parents felt HAs signified a deterioration in hearing and an escalation of care. Improvements in hearing were reported by interviewees with VTs and HAs; (3) demands on parents - participants often saw the insertion of VTs as opportunistic, alongside another procedure (e.g. palatal closure). They could feel disappointed when VTs fell out or were perceived to have caused ear infections. Parental involvement was on-going for HAs (e.g. ordering batteries and tubes). Parents expressed fears about the potential for social stigma of HAs, although none reported significant teasing of children because they wore HAs. CONCLUSIONS: Parents' views about treatment for OME were shaped by differing perceptions about anticipated risks and benefits. VTs may have been seen as a simple fix, inserted alongside another procedure, but some interviewees had concerns about possible physical consequences. Others were more worried about anticipated social stigma associated with HAs. However, parents of children who wore a HA described them as easy to manage and well tolerated, at least until children got older and started to comment on their appearance.

OBJECTIVE: Small, dense low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles are highly atherogenic and strongly associated with obesity-related dyslipidemia. The metabolic inter-relationships between weight loss induced changes in waist circumference, triglycerides, insulin sensitivity and small-dense LDL particles in clinically obese children and adolescents have not been studied. METHODS: Seventy-five clinically obese boys and girls (standardized body mass index 3.07 ± 0.59, aged 8-18 years) were recruited. Anthropometric, body composition and cardiometabolic risk factors were measured pre- and post-weight loss. RESULTS: There were highly significant reductions in anthropometric, body composition and cardiometabolic risk factors. Triglyceride change was positively correlated with LDL peak particle density and percentage LDL pattern B changes (relative abundance of small, dense LDL particles). Multiple regression analyses showed that changes in triglyceride concentration accounted for between 24 and 18% of the variance in LDL peak particle density and percentage LDL pattern B change, respectively. Changes in waist circumference and insulin sensitivity did not predict these changes in LDL characteristics. CONCLUSION: Acute and highly significant weight loss significantly decreased LDL peak particle density and percentage LDL pattern B. The change in triglycerides was a strong predictor of LDL peak particle density and percentage LDL pattern B change.

Plain Language Summary Funders of research are increasingly requiring researchers to involve patients and the public in their research. Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research can potentially help researchers make sure that the design of their research is relevant, that it is participant friendly and ethically sound. Using and sharing PPI resources can benefit those involved in undertaking PPI, but existing PPI resources are not used consistently and this can lead to duplication of effort. This paper describes how we are developing a toolkit to support clinical trials teams in a clinical trials unit. The toolkit will provide a key ‘off the shelf’ resource to support trial teams with limited resources, in undertaking PPI. Key activities in further developing and maintaining the toolkit are to: ● listen to the views and experience of both research teams and patient and public contributors who use the tools; ● modify the tools based on our experience of using them; ● identify the need for future tools; ● update the toolkit based on any newly identified resources that come to light; ● raise awareness of the toolkit and ● work in collaboration with others to either develop or test out PPI resources in order to reduce duplication of work in PPI. Abstract Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is increasingly a funder requirement due to the potential benefits in the design of relevant, participant friendly, ethically sound research. The use and sharing of resources can benefit PPI, but available resources are not consistently used leading to duplication of effort. This paper describes a developing toolkit to support clinical trials teams to undertake effective and meaningful PPI. Methods The first phase in developing the toolkit was to describe which PPI activities should be considered in the pathway of a clinical trial and at what stage these activities should take place. This pathway was informed through review of the type and timing of PPI activities within trials coordinated by the Clinical Trials Research Centre and previously described areas of potential PPI impact in trials. In the second phase, key websites around PPI and identification of resources opportunistically, e.g. in conversation with other trialists or social media, were used to identify resources. Tools were developed where gaps existed. Results A flowchart was developed describing PPI activities that should be considered in the clinical trial pathway and the point at which these activities should happen. Three toolkit domains were identified: planning PPI; supporting PPI; recording and evaluating PPI. Four main activities and corresponding tools were identified under the planning for PPI: developing a plan; identifying patient and public contributors; allocating appropriate costs; and managing expectations. In supporting PPI, tools were developed to review participant information sheets. These tools, which require a summary of potential trial participant characteristics and circumstances help to clarify requirements and expectations of PPI review. For recording and evaluating PPI, the planned PPI interventions should be monitored in terms of impact, and a tool to monitor public contributor experience is in development. Conclusions This toolkit provides a developing ‘off the shelf’ resource to support trial teams with limited resources in undertaking PPI. Key activities in further developing and maintaining the toolkit are to: listen to the views and experience of both research teams and public contributors using the tools, to identify the need for future tools, to modify tools based on experience of their use; to update the toolkit based on any newly identified resources that come to light; to raise awareness of the toolkit and to work in collaboration with others to both develop and test out PPI resources in order to reduce duplication of work in PPI. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40900-016-0029-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Insulin sensitivity (Si) is improved by weight loss and exercise, but the effects of the replacement of saturated fatty acids (SFAs) with monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) or carbohydrates of high glycemic index (HGI) or low glycemic index (LGI) are uncertain.Objective: We conducted a dietary intervention trial to study these effects in participants at risk of developing metabolic syndrome.Design: We conducted a 5-center, parallel design, randomized controlled trial [RISCK (Reading, Imperial, Surrey, Cambridge, and Kings)]. The primary and secondary outcomes were changes in Si (measured by using an intravenous glucose tolerance test) and cardiovascular risk factors. Measurements were made after 4 wk of a high-SFA and HGI (HS/HGI) diet and after a 24-wk intervention with HS/HGI (reference), high-MUFA and HGI (HM/HGI), HM and LGI (HM/LGI), low-fat and HGI (LF/HGI), and LF and LGI (LF/LGI) diets.Results: We analyzed data for 548 of 720 participants who were randomly assigned to treatment. The median Si was 2.7 x 10(-4) mL . mu U-1 . min(-1) (interquartile range: 2.0, 4.2 x 10(-4) mL . mu U-1 . min(-1)), and unadjusted mean percentage changes (95% CIs) after 24 wk treatment (P = 0.13) were as follows: for the HS/HGI group, -4% (-12.7%, 5.3%); for the HM/HGI group, 2.1% (-5.8%, 10.7%); for the HM/LGI group, -3.5% (-10.6%, 4.3%); for the LF/HGI group, -8.6% (-15.4%, -1.1%); and for the LF/LGI group, 9.9% (2.4%, 18.0%). Total cholesterol (TC), LDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B concentrations decreased with SFA reduction. Decreases in TC and LDL-cholesterol concentrations were greater with LGI. Fat reduction lowered HDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein A1 and B concentrations.Conclusions: This study did not support the hypothesis that iso-energetic replacement of SFAs with MUFAs or carbohydrates has a favorable effect on Si. Lowering GI enhanced reductions in TC and LDL-cholesterol concentrations in subjects, with tentative evidence of improvements in Si in the LF-treatment group. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as ISRCTN29111298. Am J Clin Nutr 2010;92:748-58.

Background: The Medical Research Council Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice outlines a three-committee trial oversight structure – the day-to-day Trial Management Group, the Data Monitoring Committee and the Trial Steering Committee. In this model, the Trial Steering Committee is the executive committee that oversees the trial and considers the recommendations from the Data Monitoring Committee. There is yet to be in-depth consideration establishing the Trial Steering Committee’s role and functionality. Methods: A survey to establish Trial Steering Committee’s current practices, role and the use and opinion on the Medical Research Council guidelines was undertaken within UK Clinical Research Collaborative registered Clinical Trials Units. Results: Completed surveys were obtained from 38 of 47 fully and partially registered Units. Individual items in the survey were analysed and reported spanning current Trial Steering Committee practices including its role, requirement and experience required for membership; methods to identify members; and meeting frequency. Terms (a document describing the committee’s remit, objectives and functionality) were obtained and analysed from 21 of 33 Units with documents in place at their Unit. A total of 20 responders suggested aspects of the current Medical Research Council Guidelines that need improvement. Conclusion: We present the first survey reporting on practices within UK Clinical Research Collaborative registered Clinical Trials Units on the experience and remits of Trial Steering Committees. We have identified a widespread adoption of Medical Research Council Guidelines for Trial Steering Committees in the United Kingdom, but limitations in this existing provision have been identified that need to be addressed.

Background Independent oversight of clinical trials, recommended by Good Clinical Practice, is typically provided by an independent advisory Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) and an independent executive committee, to whom the DMC make recommendations. The detailed role and functionality of this executive committee, known as the Trial Steering Committee (TSC) have not been studied since proposed by the MRC.

BackgroundCleft lip and palate are among the most common congenital malformations, with an incidence of around 1 in 700. Cleft palate (CP) results in impaired Eustachian tube function, and 90% of children with CP have otitis media with effusion (OME) histories. There are several approaches to management, including watchful waiting, the provision of hearing aids (HAs) and the insertion of ventilation tubes (VTs). However, the evidence underpinning these strategies is unclear and there is a need to determine which treatment is the most appropriate.ObjectivesTo identify the optimum study design, increase understanding of the impact of OME, determine the value of future research and develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in future studies.DesignThe management of Otitis Media with Effusion in children with cleft palate (mOMEnt) study had four key components: (i) a survey evaluation of current clinical practice in each cleft centre; (ii) economic modelling and value of information (VOI) analysis to determine if the extent of existing decision uncertainty justifies the cost of further research; (iii) qualitative research to capture patient and parent opinion regarding willingness to participate in a trial and important outcomes; and (iv) the development of a COS for use in future effectiveness trials of OME in children with CP.SettingThe survey was carried out by e-mail with cleft centres. The qualitative research interviews took place in patients’ homes. The COS was developed with health professionals and parents using a web-based Delphi exercise and a consensus meeting.ParticipantsClinicians working in the UK cleft centres, and parents and patients affected by CP and identified through two cleft clinics in the UK, or through the Cleft Lip and Palate Association.ResultsThe clinician survey revealed that care was predominantly delivered via a ‘hub-and-spoke’ model; there was some uncertainty about treatment strategies; it is not current practice to insert VTs at the time of palate repair; centres were in a position to take part in a future study; and the response rate to the survey was not good, representing a potential concern about future co-operation. A COS reflecting the opinions of clinicians and parents was developed, which included nine core outcomes important to both health-care professionals and parents. The qualitative research suggested that a trial would have a 25% recruitment rate, and although hearing was a key outcome, this was likely to be due to its psychosocial consequences. The VOI analysis suggested that the current uncertainty justified the costs of future research.ConclusionsThere exists significant uncertainty regarding the best management strategy for persistent OME in children with clefts, reflecting a lack of high-quality evidence regarding the effectiveness of individual treatments. It is feasible, cost-effective and of significance to clinicians and parents to undertake a trial examining the effectiveness of VTs and HAs for children with CP. However, in view of concerns about recruitment rate and engagement with the clinicians, we recommend that a trial with an internal pilot is considered.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. This study was part-funded by the Healing Foundation supported by the Vocational Training Charitable Trust who funded trial staff including the study co-ordinator, information systems developer, study statistician, administrator and supervisory staff.

No gold standard method currently exists for the development of a core outcome set (COS) although key issues to consider have been identified [1]. Methodological decisions in the design of a project to develop a COS for otitis media with effusion (OME) in children with cleft palate (CP) will be explained.

BACKGROUND: The metabolic triad [fasting insulin, apolipoprotein B, and low-density lipoporotein (LDL) peak particle density] is characteristic of increased intra-abdominal adipose tissue and insulin resistance and can be predicted by the simple and adoptable screening tool, the hypertriglyceridemic waist. The associations between hypertriglyceridemic waist components [fasting triglycerides (TG) and waist circumference cut-points derived from a child-specific metabolic syndrome definition] with the metabolic triad were examined in obese youth before and after weight loss. METHODS: A continuous metabolic triad score (MTS) was calculated as a cumulative and standardized residual score of fasting insulin, apolipoprotein B, and LDL peak particle density (z-scores of the metabolic triad variables regressed onto age and sex). The predictive ability of TG and waist in assessing metabolic triad change was undertaken in 75 clinically obese boys and girls, aged 8-18, body mass index (BMI) 34.2±6.4 kg/m(2) before and after weight loss. RESULTS: Fasting TG concentrations (r(2)=0.216, P

HDL subclasses detection, in cardiovascular risk, has been limited due to the time-consuming nature of current techniques. We have developed a time-saving and reliable separation of the principal HDL subclasses employing iodixanol density gradient ultracentrifugation (IxDGUC) combined with digital photography. HDL subclasses were separated in 2.5 h from prestained plasma on a three-step iodixanol gradient. HDL subclass profiles were generated by digital photography and gel scan software. Plasma samples (n = 46) were used to optimize the gradient for the resolution of HDL heterogeneity and to compare profiles generated by IxDGUC with gradient gel electrophoresis (GGE); further characterization from participants (n = 548) with a range of lipid profiles was also performed. HDL subclass profiles generated by IxDGUC were comparable to those separated by GGE as indicated by a significant association between areas under the curve for both HDL2 and HDL3 (HDL2, r = 0.896, P < 0.01; HDL3, r = 0.894, P < 0.01). The method was highly reproducible, with intra- and interassay coefficient of variation percentage < 5 for percentage area under the curve HDL2 and HDL3, and < 1% for peak Rf and peak density. The method provides time-saving and cost-effective detection and preparation of the principal HDL subclasses.

Background Cleft palate (CP) has an incidence of approximately 1 in 700. Children with CP are also susceptible to otitis media with effusion (OME), with approximately 90% experiencing nontrivial OME. There are several approaches to the management of OME in children with CP. The Management of Otitis Media with Effusion in Children with Cleft Palate (MOMENT) study is a feasibility study that includes the development of a core outcome set for use in future trials of the management of OME in children with CP. Methods/Design The MOMENT study will include a systematic review of the literature to identify a list of outcomes that have previously been reported. This list of outcomes will be used in a Delphi study with cleft clinicians. The Delphi study is anticipated to include three rounds. The first round will ask clinicians to score the outcome list and to add any outcomes they think are relevant. The second round involves presentation of scores according to stakeholder group and the opportunity for participants to rescore outcomes. To ensure that the opinion of parents and children are sought, qualitative interviews will be completed with a purposive sample in parallel. In the final round of the Delphi process, participants will be shown the distribution of scores, for each outcome, for all stakeholder groups separately as well as a summary of the results concerning outcomes from the qualitative interviews with parents. A final consensus meeting will be held with all stakeholders, including parents and children, to review outcomes. Discussion A core outcome set represents the minimum that should be measured in a clinical trial for a particular condition. The MOMENT study will aim to identify a core outcome set that can be used in future trials of the management of OME, improving the consistency of research in this clinical area.

BACKGROUND: FFAR1 receptor is a long chain fatty acid G-protein coupled receptor which is expressed widely, but found in high density in the pancreas and central nervous system. It has been suggested that FFAR1 may play a role in insulin sensitivity, lipotoxicity and is associated with type 2 diabetes. Here we investigate the effect of three common SNPs of FFAR1 (rs2301151; rs16970264; rs1573611) on pancreatic function, BMI, body composition and plasma lipids.METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: For this enquiry we used the baseline RISCK data, which provides a cohort of overweight subjects at increased cardiometabolic risk with detailed phenotyping. The key findings were SNPs of the FFAR1 gene region were associated with differences in body composition and lipids, and the effects of the 3 SNPs combined were cumulative on BMI, body composition and total cholesterol. The effects on BMI and body fat were predominantly mediated by rs1573611 (1.06 kg/m(2) higher (P = 0.009) BMI and 1.53% higher (P = 0.002) body fat per C allele). Differences in plasma lipids were also associated with the BMI-increasing allele of rs2301151 including higher total cholesterol (0.2 mmol/L per G allele, P = 0.01) and with the variant A allele of rs16970264 associated with lower total (0.3 mmol/L, P = 0.02) and LDL (0.2 mmol/L, PCONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Differences in body composition and lipids associated with common SNPs in the FFAR1 gene were apparently not mediated by changes in insulin sensitivity or beta-cell function.

Background/Aims: The peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) are transcriptional regulators of lipid metabolism, activated by unsaturated fatty acids. We investigated independent and interactive effects of PPARγ2 gene PPARG Pro12Ala (rs1801282) andPPARαgene PPARA Leu162Val (rs1800206) genotypes with dietary intake of fatty acids on concentrations of plasma lipids in subjects of whom 47.5% had metabolic syndrome. Methods: The RISCK study is a parallel design, randomised controlled trial. Plasma lipids were quantified at baseline after a 4-week high saturated fatty acids diet and after three parallel 24-week interventions with reference (high saturated fatty acids), high monounsaturated fatty acids and low-fat diets. Single nucleotide polymorphisms were genotyped in 466 subjects. Results: At baseline, the PPARG Ala12allele was associated with increased plasma total cholesterol (n = 378; p = 0.04), LDL cholesterol (p = 0.05) and apoB (p =0.05) after adjustment for age, gender and ethnicity. At baseline, PPARA Leu162Val × PPARG Pro12Ala genotype interaction did not significantly influence plasma lipid concentrations. After dietary intervention, gene-gene interaction significantly influenced LDL cholesterol (p =0.0002) and small dense LDL as a proportion of LDL (p = 0.005) after adjustments. Conclusions: Interaction between PPARG Pro12Ala and PPARA Leu162Valgenotypes may influence plasma LDL cholesterol concentration and the proportion as small dense LDL after a high monounsaturated fatty acids diet.

Background There is increased incidence of new cases of type 1 diabetes in children younger than 15 years. The debate concerning where best to manage newly diagnosed children continues. Some units routinely admit children to hospital whilst others routinely manage children at home. A Cochrane review identified the need for a large well-designed randomised controlled trial to investigate any significant differences in comprehensive short and long-term outcomes between the two approaches. The DECIDE study will address these knowledge gaps, providing high quality evidence to inform national and international policy and practice. Methods/Design This is a multi-centre randomised controlled trial across eight UK paediatric diabetes centres. The study aims to recruit 240 children newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes and their parents/carers. Eligible patients (aged 0-17 years) will be remotely randomised to either 'hospital' or 'home' management. Parents/carers of patients will also be recruited. Nursing management of participants and data collection will be co-ordinated by a project nurse at each centre. Data will be collected for 24 months after diagnosis; at follow up appointments at 3, 12 and 24 months and every 3-4 months at routine clinic visits. The primary outcome measure is patients' glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) at 24 months after diagnosis. Additional measurements of HbA1c will be made at diagnosis and 3 and 12 months later. HbA1c concentrations will be analysed at a central laboratory. Secondary outcome measures include length of stay at diagnosis, growth, adverse events, quality of life, anxiety, coping with diabetes, diabetes knowledge, home/clinic visits, self-care activity, satisfaction and time off school/work. Questionnaires will be sent to participants at 1, 12 and 24 months and will include a questionnaire, developed and validated to measure impact of the diagnosis on social activity and independence. Additional qualitative outcome measures include the experience of both approaches by a subgroup of participants (n = 30) and health professionals. Total health service costs will be evaluated. A cost effectiveness analysis will assess direct and indirect health service costs against the primary outcome (HbA1c). Discussion This will be the first randomised controlled trial to evaluate hospital and home management of children newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes and the findings should provide important evidence to inform practice and national guidelines. Trial registration number ISRCTN: ISRCTN78114042

Diets enriched with dietary cholesterol, frequently from eggs, have been shown to produce a small but variable increase in plasma low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. There is evidence to suggest that energy-restricted diets, that may contain a relatively high proportion of fat and cholesterol, can attenuate the cholesterol-raising effect of dietary cholesterol on plasma LDL.To determine the combined effects of increased dietary cholesterol and weight loss produced by energy restriction on plasma LDL cholesterol and lipoproteins.A randomized, controlled, parallel study was performed in two groups of free-living volunteers on an energy-restricted diet for 12 weeks, one group was instructed to consume two eggs a day (n = 24), the other, to exclude eggs (n = 21). Dietary advice on energy restriction was based on the British Heart Foundation guidelines on how to lose weight for men and women.Energy intake fell by 25 and 29% in the egg-fed and non-egg-fed groups, resulting in a moderate weight loss of 3.4 kg (P0.05) and 4.4 kg (P0.05), respectively. The daily intake of dietary cholesterol increased significantly in the egg-fed group from 278 to 582 mg after 6 weeks. The concentration of plasma LDL cholesterol decreased in the non-egg-fed groups after 6 weeks (P0.01) and in the egg-fed and non-egg-fed at 12 weeks relative to baseline. There were no other significant changes in plasma lipoproteins or LDL particle size.An increased intake of dietary cholesterol from two eggs a day, does not increase total plasma or LDL cholesterol when accompanied by moderate weight loss. These findings suggest that cholesterol-rich foods should not be excluded from dietary advice to lose weight on account of an unfavorable influence on plasma LDL cholesterol.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research involves the active contribution of members of the public in research studies and within research organisations. PPI is important in ensuring the relevance and quality of general health care research. Funders often now request evidence of prior and future planned PPI in health research. The impact of PPI on various aspects of study development and delivery has been described, from study design through to the dissemination and implementation of study findings. Research, however suggests that PPI is inconsistent in terms of levels of engagement, quality and reporting. Within clinical trials variations in intentions and plans for PPI and the experience and impact of such involvement have been identified. Additionally resources to support PPI in clinical trials are often not used in practice. The University of Liverpool Clinical Trials Research Centre PPI working group decided to design a web based toolkit designed to support the PPI activities in clinical trials. The toolkit will signpost chief investigators and trial teams to a range of tools. The tools are designed to facilitate meaningful and effective PPI at all stages of a clinical trial. The development of the toolkit involves: • Describing the PPI pathway through a clinical trial • Identifying existing internal and external resources to support PPI • Identifying additional required resources • Evaluating the use the resources • Disseminating information about the use and impact of the resources and making improvements and modifications to them based on our experience. The results of developing this toolkit will be presented.

Recruitment to time and target remains a common challenge in the completion of a successful clinical trial. Since 2007 there has been significant investment in infrastructure to support clinical trials in the UK but the challenge of recruitment remains. The 2013 International Clinical Trials Methodology Conference demonstrated the volume of methodological research targeting recruitment. Furthermore, a 2014 survey of UK registered clinical trials units identified “research into methods to boost recruitment in trials” as the top priority for methodological research. Research in this area needs to be managed in a resourceful way that will enable trialists and methodologists to access and use relevant research, to review methods that have been used to evaluate recruitment strategies and to identify areas that warrant further study. The ORRCA project aims to deliver this resource by creating a web-enabled database populated with published and ongoing recruitment research. Eligible studies, identified from a search of the literature and contact with funders, will be categorised into key domains. We will include all eligible studies which report or assess recruitment strategies or interventions in the context of a clinical trial. This will include randomised comparisons and “case reports” of the specific recruitment strategy used in a clinical trial. The key domains, developed for the web-enabled database, will be presented along with the search strategy and initial results mapped to the key domains. Areas requiring further research and prioritisation will be identified.

Conducting systematic reviews of qualitative studies to incorporate patient perspectives within the early stages of core outcome set (COS) development can be resource intensive. We aimed to identify an expedited approach to be used as part of the wider COS development process. Specifically, we undertook a rapid review of qualitative studies of patients' views and experiences of type 2 diabetes. We searched MEDLINE from inception to June 2017 to identify studies reporting qualitative empirical findings of perspectives of people with type 2 diabetes. Qualitative methodological filters were used to minimize irrelevant references. Drawing on content analysis, data synthesis involved identifying text in eligible studies relevant to outcomes of type 2 diabetes and interpreting and categorizing this according to the 38 core domains of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy. Of 146 studies screened, 26 were included. Four hundred and fifty-eight outcomes were derived from the included studies. In comparison to the outcomes extracted from clinical trials, more life impact outcomes were derived from the qualitative studies, but fewer physiological/clinical outcomes. Outcomes relating to 'mortality/survival' and 'role functioning' were more prevalent in studies conducted in low/middle-income countries. This rapid review and synthesis of qualitative studies identified outcomes that had not previously been identified by a systematic review of clinical trials. It also identified differences in the types of outcomes given prominence to in the clinical trials and qualitative literatures. Incorporating qualitative evidence on patient perspectives from the outset of the COS development process can help to ensure outcomes that matter to patients are not overlooked. Our method provides a pragmatic and resource-efficient way to do this. For those developing international COS, our method has potential for incorporating the perspectives of patients from diverse countries in the early stages of COS development.

Animal models play a crucial role in understanding the mechanisms of diseases and symptoms, and to test the efficacy and safety of treatments before conducting clinical trials. Selecting human diseases and developing core sets of clinical outcome measures as well as complementary sets of mouse phenotyping measures will contribute to narrow the gap between animal models and human trials. The overall objective of the CORBEL task 3.2 is to promote convergence between outcome measures used for clinical trials in humans and phenotyping techniques used for testing treatments in animal models.

Background DAMOCLES established a Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) Charter which has been widely used for RCTs. The DMC is typically advisory and makes recommendations to another executive body; the Trial Steering Committee (TSC). Despite the executive role of the TSC over the DMC, the CONSORT statement doesn’t explicitly require reporting of TSC activity although TSCs are included as an example of good reporting.

The DAMOCLES project established a Data Monitoring Committee Charter which has been widely used for randomised controlled trials since 2005. As established within DAMOCLES, the DMC is typical advisory, making recommendations to another executive body; considered the Trial Steering Committee. No evidence-based Charter exists for TSCs to establish their role and functionality in RCTs. The MRC Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice (1998) defines a three committee oversight structure: the day-to-day Trial Management Group, the DMC and the executive TSC. The document provides brief Terms of Reference for TSCs and represents the first attempt at guidance on TSC remit and structure. It is not known whether or how extensively this document has been used to inform TSC-like current roles and practice. There is acknowledged variation in practice in the UK and, moreover, internationally. The aim of this project was to re-visit the MRC Terms of Reference and provide dedicated guidance on TSC remit and structure by producing a comprehensive Terms of Reference and Charter that will promote a systematic and transparent approach to the oversight of RCTs. To inform this development, a survey to establish current practice and requirements within UK registered Clinical Trials Units has been undertaken. A cohort of published RCTs within medical journals and HTA monographs has been obtained to determine how TSC activities are currently reported and the literature reviewed to identify case studies of TSC activity in RCT conduct. Results of this work will be presented with how these findings impact development of more complete guidelines.