Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Participant non-response is a source of bias in all research, especially in randomised controlled trials. Participants followed up remotely can have high non-response rates. Four such trials have been conducted of a cover letter with content informed by behaviour change theory to overcome hypothesised barriers to responding to a mailed questionnaire. Pooled results to date have suggested further research to be worthwhile. We conducted an embedded randomised study within a trial of such cover letters in the hope that we would improve response rates to our postal quality of life questionnaires. Methods One hundred forty-eight participants in the CODIFI2 diabetic foot ulcer sampling trial were randomised 1:1 to receive one of two different cover letters at follow-up timepoints: either a standard cover letter accompanying their postal follow-up questionnaires or to an ‘enhanced’ (theory-informed) cover letter. Questionnaires were mailed at 39, 52 and (for some participants) 104 weeks post randomisation. Outcome measures were response to mailing at each timepoint. Analysis was restricted to those for whom a questionnaire and letter was issued. Owing to limited recruitment, a reduced analysis plan, comprising solely observed response rates and 95% confidence intervals for difference in response rates was followed. Post hoc, we added our week 52 results to an already-published meta-analysis. Results Sixty-seven out of 74 enhanced cover letter group (Enhanced) and 67/74 standard cover letter group (Standard) participants who had not already died or withdrawn were sent their first mailing at 39 weeks. The 39-week response rates were 47/67 (70.1%) and 39/67 (58.2%) for Enhanced and Standard participants, respectively. At week 52, the response rates were 45/64 (70.3%) and 35/63 (55.6%) for Enhanced and Standard participants, respectively. At week 104, the response rates were 24/33 (72.7%) and 19/33 (57.6%) for the Enhanced and Standard participants, respectively. Adding our week 52 results to a published meta-analysis increased the pooled estimate of differences in response rates to 0.04 (− 0.01 to 0.09) favouring enhanced letters. Conclusion While this embedded randomised controlled trial observed greater response rates at all times among those randomised to the enhanced letter, the reduced sample size meant that these results are imprecise. Trial registration ISRCTN registry ISRCTN74929588. Registered on 5 March 2019.

Introduction Pressure ulcer-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments should be used to inform patient care and provide a strong evidence base for interventions aimed at preventing pressure ulcers. The aim was to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of the psychometric properties of a PRO instrument designed to assess symptoms and functional outcomes in patients at high-risk of developing pressure ulcers, the PU-QOL-P instrument. Methods We modified the original PU-QOL instrument to be suitable for patients at high risk of pressure ulcer development based on feedback from patients, specialist nurses and PRO methodologists. The modified PU-QOL-P instrument was administered to a sub-set of patients participating in the PRESSURE 2 trial. Patients completed PU-QOL-P and SF12 instruments at baseline, weeks 1 and 3, and 30 days post-treatment. We undertook psychometric evaluation of the modified PU-QOL-P to test scale targeting, scaling assumptions, reliability, validity and responsiveness. Results The analysis sample consisted of 617 patients that completed both instruments at baseline. We found that the PU-QOL-P instrument, consisting of nine PU-specific outcomes: three symptom and six function scales, meets established criteria for reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness. Internal consistency reliability was high with all scale Cronbach alpha > 0.795 (range 0.795–0.970). The factor analysis mostly supported the six-function scale structure. Scaling assumptions were satisfied; all item-total correlations above 0.30. Convergent validity was confirmed by significant correlations between hypothesized scales as expected. PU-QOL-P scales were responsive to change: mean scale scores from baseline to 30 days post-treatment were statistically significant for all scales apart the daily activities scale (effect sizes ranged from moderate to high). As expected, worse symptoms and functioning was observed in patients who had a category 1 or 2 PU compared to patients who did not have a PU. Conclusions The PU-QOL-P provides a standardised method for assessing pressure ulcer-specific symptoms and functional outcomes for quantifying the benefits of associated interventions from the patient’s perspective. It can be used in research with adults at risk of pressure ulcer development in all UK healthcare settings.

BackgroundThe primary endpoint in diabetes-related foot ulcer (DFU) trials is often time to healing, defined as complete re-epithelialisation with absence of drainage, requiring clinical expert assessment as the gold standard. Central blinded photograph review for confirmation of healing is increasingly being undertaken for internal validity. The Diabetic Foot Ulcer Photography study aims to determine the agreement between blinded independent review panel members for assessing ulcer healing status in patients with DFUs.Methods and analysisPhotographs of ulcers clinically assessed as healed or not healed across 300 participants recruited to one of two randomised controlled trials (MIDFUT and CODIFI2), will be independently reviewed by a central blinded panel consisting of four clinicians with expertise in ulcer healing assessment. Staff at recruiting sites will take photographs using a standardised camera and protocol. Photographs will be reviewed at three levels of magnification: raw image, image standardised to a measurement scale included in the photograph and standardised image with magnification permitted. Reviewers will assess the healing status and their confidence level in making a healing judgement, with reasons reported for a low confidence rating. Analysis at each level of magnification will estimate inter- and intra-rater reliability on the assessments of healing of photographs with the clinical assessment (primary) and confidence rating using multivariable logistic mixed models. Analysis of the learning curve for the assessment of healing and confidence rating will use exponential and two-phase models.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been granted by the National Research Ethics Service Committees (MIDFUT 17/YH/0055; CODIFI2 18-WS-0235). All participants will provide a written informed consent for photography before recruited onto the respective study. Photographs will be transferred to the trials’ coordinating centre via a secure file transfer service and saved in a restricted access folder on a secure server. Results will be disseminated via publications in scientific journals and conference presentations.Trial registration numberMIDFUT (ISRCTN64926597) and CODIFI2 (ISRCTN74929588).

Background Use of electronic methods to support informed consent (‘eConsent’) is increasingly popular in clinical research. This commentary reports the approach taken to implement electronic consent methods and subsequent experiences from a range of studies at the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit (CTRU), a large clinical trials unit in the UK. Main text We implemented a remote eConsent process using the REDCap platform. The process can be used in trials of investigational medicinal products and other intervention types or research designs. Our standard eConsent system focuses on documenting informed consent, with other aspects of consent (e.g. providing information to potential participants and a recruiter discussing the study with each potential participant) occurring outside the system, though trial teams can use electronic methods for these activities where they have ethical approval. Our overall process includes a verbal consent step prior to confidential information being entered onto REDCap and an identity verification step in line with regulator guidance. We considered the regulatory requirements around the system’s generation of source documents, how to ensure data protection standards were upheld and how to monitor informed consent within the system. We present four eConsent case studies from the CTRU: two randomised clinical trials and two other health research studies. These illustrate the ways eConsent can be implemented, and lessons learned, including about differences in uptake. Conclusions We successfully implemented a remote eConsent process at the CTRU across multiple studies. Our case studies highlight benefits of study participants being able to give consent without having to be present at the study site. This may better align with patient preferences and trial site needs and therefore improve recruitment and resilience against external shocks (such as pandemics). Variation in uptake of eConsent may be influenced more by site-level factors than patient preferences, which may not align well with the aspiration towards patient-centred research. Our current process has some limitations, including the provision of all consent-related text in more than one language, and scalability of implementing more than one consent form version at a time. We consider how enhancements in CTRU processes, or external developments, might affect our approach.

ObjectiveThe aim of the knee arthroplasty versus joint distraction (KARDS) randomised trial was to investigate whether knee joint distraction (KJD) is non-inferior to knee arthroplasty, also known as knee replacement (KR). Here we report the findings from qualitative interviews that were part of the planned KARDS process evaluation.Design and methodsSemi-structured qualitative interviews with staff and participants in secondary care. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis.FindingsWe were unable to complete the full-planned KARDS process evaluation as recruitment to the trial was closed early but key common themes emerged.Eleven members of staff were interviewed from two KARDS sites (eight initial interviews just after site opening and three follow-up interviews at 12 months). Eleven KARDS participants (six KR and five KJD) were interviewed. One overarching theme emerged: ‘An unexpected journey’. This incorporated subthemes including ‘an important research question’, ‘a roller coaster ride’, ‘lessons learnt’, ‘managing expectations’ and ‘a slow recovery’. These encapsulate experiences of both staff and participants.ConclusionThe information that we were able to collect highlights that providing adequate and comprehensive information about all aspects of treatment including estimated timelines of recovery are essential in clinical trials of novel interventions. Incorporating a comprehensive rehabilitation package following KJD was a key learning. Process evaluations in these complex trials are essential to determine issues as early as possible so appropriate changes can be made to ensure participants have a smooth journey through the trial experience.Trial registration number ISRCTN14879004.

Background PRESSURE 2 is a randomised evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two types of mattress for the prevention of pressure ulcers (PUs). The primary clinical endpoint was time to development of a category ≥2 PU. The current ‘gold standard’ for PU identification is expert clinical assessment. Due to the mattress appearance, a blinded assessment of the endpoint is not possible. This poses a risk to the internal validity of the study. A possible approach is to use photographs of skin sites, with central blinded review. However, there are practical and scientific concerns including patients’ consent to photographs, burden of data collection, photograph quality, data completeness and comparison of photographs to the current ‘gold standard’. This paper reports the findings of the PRESSURE 2 photographic validation sub-study. Method Where consent was obtained, photographs were taken of all category ≥2 PUs on the first presentation to assess over-reporting, and for the assessment of under-reporting, a random sample of 10% patients had an assessment by an independent clinical assessor who also photographed two skin sites. The staff were trained in taking and transferring photographs using standardised procedures and equipment. A card included in the photograph recorded participant details and a ‘greyscale’ for correction of white balance during processing. Three blinded reviewers assessed the photographs and rated how confident they were in their assessment. Results The trial recruited 2029 patients; 85% consented to photography, and 532 photographs were received and used in the blinded central review. The level of confidence varied by skin classification with more confidence observed when the skin was assessed as being less severe than a category ≥2 PU. Overall, there was a very good reliability compared to the gold standard expert clinical assessment (87.8%, kappa 0.82). Conclusion Study findings have usefully informed the scientific and practical issues of blinded assessment of PU status to reducing the risk of bias in medical device trials. The reliability of central blinded expert photography was found to be ‘very good’ (PABAK). Photographs have been found to be an acceptable method of data validation for participants. Methods to improve the quality of photographs would increase the confidence in the assessments. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN01151335 . Registered on 19 April 2013

IntroductionDiabetes affects more than 425 million people worldwide with a lifetime risk of diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) of up to 25%. Management includes wound debridement, wound dressings, offloading, treatment of infection and ischaemia, optimising glycaemic control; use of advanced adjuvant therapies is limited by high cost and lack of robust evidence.Methods and analysisA multicentre, seamless phase II/III, open, parallel group, multi-arm multi-stage randomised controlled trial in patients with a hard-to-heal DFU, with blinded outcome assessment. A maximum of 447 participants will be randomised (245 participants in phase II and 202 participants in phase III). The phase II primary objective will determine the efficacy of treatment strategies including hydrosurgical debridement ± decellularised dermal allograft, or the combination with negative pressure wound therapy, as an adjunct to treatment as usual (TAU), compared with TAU alone, with patients randomised in a 1:1:1:2 allocation. The outcome is achieving at least 50% reduction in index ulcer area at 4 weeks post randomisation.The phase III primary objective will determine whether one treatment strategy, continued from phase II, reduces time to healing of the index ulcer compared with TAU alone, with participants randomised in a 1:1 allocation. Secondary objectives will compare healing status of the index ulcer, infection rate, reulceration, quality of life, cost-effectiveness and incidence of adverse events over 52 weeks post randomisation. Phase II and phase III primary endpoint analysis will be conducted using a mixed-effects logistic regression model and Cox proportional hazards regression, respectively. A within-trial economic evaluation will be undertaken; the primary economic analysis will be a cost-utility analysis presenting ICERs for each treatment strategy in rank order of effectiveness, with effects expressed as quality-adjusted life years.The trial has predefined progression criteria for the selection of one treatment strategy into phase III based on efficacy, safety and costs at 4 weeks.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been granted by the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) Committee Yorkshire and The Humber - Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee; approved 26 April 2017; (REC reference: 17/YH/0055). There is planned publication of a monograph in National Institute for Health Research journals and main trial results and associated papers in high-impact peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberISRCTN64926597; registered on 6 June 2017

Background Foot problems associated with Systemic Sclerosis (SSc)/Scleroderma have been reported to be both common and disabling. There are only limited data describing specifically, the mechanical changes occurring in the foot in SSc. A pilot project conducted in preparation for this trial confirmed the previous reports of foot related impairment and reduced foot function in people with SSc and demonstrated a link to mechanical etiologies. To-date there have been no formal studies of interventions directed at the foot problems experienced by people with Systemic Sclerosis. The primary aim of this trial is to evaluate whether foot pain and foot-related health status in people with Systemic Sclerosis can be improved through the provision of a simple pressure-relieving insole. Methods The proposed trial is a pragmatic, multicenter, randomised controlled clinical trial following a completed pilot study. In four participating centres, 140 consenting patients with SSc and plantar foot pain will be randomised to receive either a commercially available pressure relieving and thermally insulating insole, or a sham insole with no cushioning or thermal properties. The primary end point is a reduction in pain measured using the Foot Function Index Pain subscale, 12 weeks after the start of intervention. Participants will complete the primary outcome measure (Foot Function Index pain sub-scale) prior to randomisation and at 12 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcomes include participant reported pain and disability as derived from the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Questionnaire and plantar pressures with and without the insoles in situ. Discussion This trial protocol proposes a rigorous and potentially significant evaluation of a simple and readily provided therapeutic approach which, if effective, could be of a great benefit for this group of patients. Trial registration number ISRCTN: ISRCTN02824122

Background According to the UK Adult Dental Health Survey (2009) 15% of adults aged 65–74, 30% aged 75–84 and 47% aged >85 years are edentulous and require complete dentures. Patients’ quality of life and nutrition status are affected by poor dentures. The quality of the dental impression is the most important issue for improving the fit and comfort of new dentures. There is paucity of RCT evidence for which impression material is best for complete dentures construction. This study aims to compare two impression materials for effectiveness and cost effectiveness. Methods/Design IMPROVDENT is a double-blind crossover trial comparing the use of alginate and silicone, two commonly used denture impression materials, in terms of patient preference and cost-effectiveness. Eighty five edentulous patients will be recruited and provided with two sets of dentures, similar in all aspects except for the impression material used (alginate or silicone). Patients will try both sets of dentures for a two-week period, unadjusted, to become accustomed to the feel of the new dentures (habituation period). Patients will then wear each set of dentures for a period of 8 weeks (in random order) during which time the dentures will be adjusted for optimum comfort. Finally, patients will be given both sets of dentures for a further two weeks to wear whichever denture they prefer (confirmation period). Patients will be asked about quality of life and to rate dentures on function and comfort at the end of each trial period and asked which set they prefer at the end of the habituation period (unadjusted denture preference) and confirmation period (adjusted denture preference). A health economic evaluation will estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of producing dentures from the two materials. A qualitative study will investigate the impact of dentures on behaviour and quality of life. Funding: IMPROVDENT is funded by NIHR RfPB (PB-PG-0408-16300). Discussion This trial aims to provide evidence on the costs and quality of dentures cast from two different commonly used impression materials; the intention is to significantly impact on the quality of denture production within NHS dentistry. Trial Registration ISRCTN Register: ISRCTN01528038 UKCRN Portfolio ID: 8305

Background Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) is estimated to occur in 10-15% of people with psoriasis and accounts for 13% of people attending early arthritis clinics. With an increasing awareness of the poor outcomes associated with PsA and the availability of new effective, but costly, treatments, there is an urgent need to research the optimal treatment for patients with PsA. The aim of the TICOPA study is to establish whether, in treatment naive early PsA patients, “tight control” intensive management with protocol driven therapies and pre-defined objective targets for treatment can improve clinical outcome compared to standard care alone. Methods/design TICOPA is a UK multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, parallel group trial of 206 patients with early PsA. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive either standard care (12 weekly review) or intensive management (4 weekly review) for a period of 48 weeks. Patients assigned to the intensive management group will follow a strict treatment protocol whereby dose continuation/escalation is determined through the objective assessment of the minimal disease activity (MDA) criteria. Patients assigned to the standard care group will have treatment prescribed as felt appropriate by the treating clinician, with no set protocol. The primary objective of the trial is to compare intensive management with standard care in terms of the proportion of patients achieving an ACR 20 response at 48 weeks post-randomisation, in order to determine whether intensive management has superior clinical efficacy. Key secondary outcomes include ACR 50 and 70, PASI 75 and X-ray Van der Heijde score at 48 weeks post-randomisation along with cost-effectiveness at 12, 24 and 28 weeks. Discussion The TICOPA trial will provide direct evidence as to whether the use of early and intensive treatment in PsA in routine clinical care leads to an improvement in patients’ disease activity and a reduction in radiological joint damage. Trial registration ISRCTN30147736 , NCT01106079