Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background One of the top three research priorities for the UK clinical trial community is to address the gap in evidence-based approaches to improving participant retention in randomised trials. Despite this, there is little evidence supporting methods to improve retention. This paper reports the PRioRiTy II project, a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) that identified and prioritised unanswered questions and uncertainties around trial retention in collaboration with key stakeholders. Methods This PSP was conducted in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, a non-profit making initiative, to support key stakeholders (researchers, patients, and the public) in jointly identifying and agreeing on priority research questions. There were three stages. (1) First an initial online survey was conducted consisting of six open-ended questions about retention in randomised trials. Responses were coded into thematic groups to create a longlist of questions. The longlist of questions was checked against existing evidence to ensure that they had not been answered by existing research. (2) An interim stage involved a further online survey where stakeholders were asked to select questions of key importance from the longlist. (3) A face-to-face consensus meeting was held, where key stakeholder representatives agreed on an ordered list of 21 unanswered research questions for methods of improving retention in randomised trials. Results A total of 456 respondents yielded 2431 answers to six open-ended questions, from which 372 questions specifically about retention were identified. Further analysis included thematically grouping all data items within answers and merging questions in consultation with the Steering Group. This produced 27 questions for further rating during the interim survey. The top 21 questions from the interim online survey were brought to a face-to-face consensus meeting in which key stakeholder representatives prioritised the order. The ‘Top 10’ of these are reported in this paper. The number one ranked question was ’What motivates a participant’s decision to complete a clinical trial?’ The entire list will be available at www.priorityresearch.ie . Conclusion The Top 10 list can inform the direction of future research on trial methods and be used by funders to guide projects aiming to address and improve retention in randomised trials.

Excessive haemorrhage at cesarean section requires donor (allogeneic) blood transfusion. Cell salvage may reduce this requirement. We conducted a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (at 26 obstetric units; participants recruited from 4 June 2013 to 17 April 2016) of routine cell salvage use (intervention) versus current standard of care without routine salvage use (control) in cesarean section among women at risk of haemorrhage. Randomisation was stratified, using random permuted blocks of variable sizes. In an intention-to-treat analysis, we used multivariable models, adjusting for stratification variables and prognostic factors identified a priori, to compare rates of donor blood transfusion (primary outcome) and fetomaternal haemorrhage ≥2 ml in RhD-negative women with RhD-positive babies (a secondary outcome) between groups. Among 3,028 women randomised (2,990 analysed), 95.6% of 1,498 assigned to intervention had cell salvage deployed (50.8% had salvaged blood returned; mean 259.9 ml) versus 3.9% of 1,492 assigned to control. Donor blood transfusion rate was 3.5% in the control group versus 2.5% in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42 to 1.01, p = 0.056; adjusted risk difference -1.03, 95% CI -2.13 to 0.06). In a planned subgroup analysis, the transfusion rate was 4.6% in women assigned to control versus 3.0% in the intervention group among emergency cesareans (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.99), whereas it was 2.2% versus 1.8% among elective cesareans (adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.83) (interaction p = 0.46). No case of amniotic fluid embolism was observed. The rate of fetomaternal haemorrhage was higher with the intervention (10.5% in the control group versus 25.6% in the intervention group, adjusted OR 5.63, 95% CI 1.43 to 22.14, p = 0.013). We are unable to comment on long-term antibody sensitisation effects. The overall reduction observed in donor blood transfusion associated with the routine use of cell salvage during cesarean section was not statistically significant. This trial was prospectively registered on ISRCTN as trial number 66118656 and can be viewed on http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN66118656.

ObjectiveThe ACROBAT pilot trial of early cryoprecipitate for severe postpartum haemorrhage used deferred consent procedures. Pretrial discussions with a patient and public involvement group found mixed views towards deferred consent. This study aimed to build an understanding of how the deferred consent procedures worked in practice, to inform plans for a full-scale trial.SettingQualitative interview study within a cluster-randomised pilot trial, involving four London maternity services.ParticipantsIndividual interviews were conducted postnatally with 10 women who had received blood transfusion for severe postpartum haemorrhage and had consented to the trial. We also interviewed four ‘recruiters’—two research midwives and two clinical trials practitioners who conducted trial recruitment.ResultsConsent procedures in the ACROBAT pilot trial were generally acceptable and the intervention was viewed as low risk, but most women did not remember much about the consent conversation. As per trial protocol, recruiters sought to consent women before hospital discharge, but this time pressure had to be balanced against the need to ensure women were not approached when distressed or very unwell. Extra efforts had to be made to communicate trial information to women due to the exhaustion of their recovery and competing demands for their attention. Participant information was further complicated by explanations about the cluster design and change in transfusion process, even though the consent sought was for access to medical data.ConclusionOur findings indicate that deferred consent procedures raise similar concerns as taking consent when emergency obstetric research is occurring—that is, the risk that participants may conflate research with clinical care, and that their ability to process trial information may be impacted by the stressful nature of recovery and newborn care. A future trial may support more meaningful informed consent by extending the window of consent discussion and ensuring trial information is minimal and easy to understand.Trial registration number ISRCTN12146519.

Background Subfertility is a common problem for which in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment is commonly recommended. Success rates following IVF are suboptimal and have remained static over the last few years. This imposes a considerable financial burden on overstretched healthcare resources. Time-lapse imaging (TLI) of developing embryos in IVF treatment is hypothesised to improve the success rates of treatment. This may be either by providing undisturbed culture conditions or by improving the predictive accuracy for optimal embryo selection from a cohort of available embryos. However, the current best evidence for its effectiveness is inconclusive. Methods The time-lapse imaging trial is a pragmatic, multi-centre, three-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trial using re-randomisation. The primary objective of the trial is to determine if the use of TLI or undisturbed culture in IVF treatment results in a higher live birth rate when compared to current standard methods of embryo incubation and assessment. Secondary outcomes include measures of clinical efficacy and safety. The trial will randomise 1575 participants to detect an increase in live birth from 26.5 to 35.25%. Discussion In the absence of high-quality evidence, there is no current national guidance, recommendation or policy for the use of TLI. The use of TLI is not consistently incorporated into standard IVF care. A large, pragmatic, multi-centre, trial will provide much needed definitive evidence regarding the effectiveness of TLI. If proven to be effective, its incorporation into standard care would translate into significant clinical and economic benefits. If not, it would allow allocation of resources to more effective interventions. Trial registration ISRCTN registry ISRCTN17792989 . Prospectively registered on 18 April 2018

ObjectiveTo determine the feasibility of a definitive trial of metformin to prevent type 2 diabetes in the postnatal period in women with gestational diabetes.DesignA multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind randomised feasibility trial with qualitative evaluation.SettingThree inner-city UK National Health Service hospitals in London.ParticipantsPregnant women with gestational diabetes treated with medication.Interventions2 g of metformin (intervention) or placebo (control) from delivery until 1 year postnatally.Primary outcome measuresRates of recruitment, randomisation, follow-up, attrition and adherence to the intervention.Secondary outcome measuresPreliminary estimates of glycaemic effects, qualitative exploration, acceptability of the intervention and costs.ResultsOut of 302 eligible women, 57.9% (175/302) were recruited. We randomised 82.3% (144/175) of those recruited, with 71 women in the metformin group and 73 women in the placebo group. Of the participants remaining in the study and providing any adherence information, 54.1% (59/109) took at least 75% of the target intervention dose; the overall mean adherence was 64% (SD 33.6). Study procedures were found to be acceptable to women and healthcare professionals. An increased perceived risk of developing type 2 diabetes, or a positive experience of taking metformin during pregnancy, encouraged participation and adherence to the intervention. Barriers to adherence included disruption to the medication schedule caused by the washout periods ahead of each study visit or having insufficient daily reminders.ConclusionsIt is feasible to run a full-scale definitive trial on the effectiveness of metformin to prevent type 2 diabetes in women with gestational diabetes, during the early postnatal period. Adherence and engagement with the study could be improved with more regular reminders and potentially the addition of ongoing educational or peer support to reinforce messages around type 2 diabetes prevention.Trial registration numberISRCTN20930880.

Background Data collection consumes a large proportion of clinical trial resources. Each data item requires time and effort for collection, processing and quality control procedures. In general, more data equals a heavier burden for trial staff and participants. It is also likely to increase costs. Knowing the types of data being collected, and in what proportion, will be helpful to ensure that limited trial resources and participant goodwill are used wisely. Aim The aim of this study is to categorise the types of data collected across a broad range of trials and assess what proportion of collected data each category represents. Methods We developed a standard operating procedure to categorise data into primary outcome, secondary outcome and 15 other categories. We categorised all variables collected on trial data collection forms from 18, mainly publicly funded, randomised superiority trials, including trials of an investigational medicinal product and complex interventions. Categorisation was done independently in pairs: one person having in-depth knowledge of the trial, the other independent of the trial. Disagreement was resolved through reference to the trial protocol and discussion, with the project team being consulted if necessary. Key results Primary outcome data accounted for 5.0% (median)/11.2% (mean) of all data items collected. Secondary outcomes accounted for 39.9% (median)/42.5% (mean) of all data items. Non-outcome data such as participant identifiers and demographic data represented 32.4% (median)/36.5% (mean) of all data items collected. Conclusion A small proportion of the data collected in our sample of 18 trials was related to the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes accounted for eight times the volume of data as the primary outcome. A substantial amount of data collection is not related to trial outcomes. Trialists should work to make sure that the data they collect are only those essential to support the health and treatment decisions of those whom the trial is designed to inform.

ObjectivesTo determine the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomised trial on the effects of myo-inositol in preventing gestational diabetes in high-risk pregnant women.DesignA multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, pilot randomised trial with nested qualitative evaluation.SettingFive inner city UK National Health Service hospitalsParticipantsMultiethnic pregnant women at 12+0 and 15+6 weeks’ gestation with risk factors for gestational diabetes.Interventions2 g of myo-inositol or placebo, both included 200 µg folic acid, twice daily until delivery.Primary outcome measuresRates of recruitment, randomisation, adherence and follow-up.Secondary outcome measuresGlycaemic indices (including homoeostatic model assessment-insulin resistance HOMA-IR), gestational diabetes (diagnosed using oral glucose tolerance test at 28 weeks and by delivery), maternal, perinatal outcomes, acceptability of intervention and costs.ResultsOf the 1326 women screened, 58% (773/1326) were potentially eligible, and 27% (205/773) were recruited. We randomised 97% (198/205) of all recruited women (99 each in intervention and placebo arms) and ascertained outcomes in 90% of women (178/198) by delivery. The mean adherence was 52% (SD 44) at 28 weeks’ and 34% (SD 41) at 36 weeks’ gestation. HOMA-IR and serum insulin levels were lower in the myo-inositol vs placebo arm (mean difference −0.6, 95% CI −1.2 to 0.0 and −2.69, 95% CI −5.26 to −0.18, respectively). The study procedures were acceptable to women and healthcare professionals. Women who perceived themselves at high risk of gestational diabetes were more likely to participate and adhere to the intervention. The powder form of myo-inositol and placebo, along with nausea in pregnancy were key barriers to adherence.ConclusionsA future trial on myo-inositol versus placebo to prevent gestational diabetes is feasible. The intervention will need to be delivered in a non-powder form to improve adherence. There is a signal for efficacy in reducing insulin resistance in pregnancy with myo-inositol.Trial registration numberISRCTN48872100.

IntroductionWomen with gestational diabetes are at increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes later in life. In at-risk general populations, Mediterranean-style diet helps prevent type 2 diabetes. But its effect on postnatal women with a history of gestational diabetes is not known. Prior to a full-scale trial on Mediterranean-style diet in the postnatal period to prevent type 2 diabetes, a feasibility study is required to assess the acceptability of the diet and evaluate the trial processes.Methods and analysisMEditerranean diet for pReventIon of type 2 diabeTes is a single-arm feasibility study (65 women) with qualitative evaluation of women who have recently given birth and had gestational diabetes. The intervention is a Mediterranean-style diet supplemented with nuts and olive oil, with dietary advice and an action plan. A dedicated Health Coach will interact with participants through an interactive lifestyle App. Women will follow the intervention from 6 to 13 weeks post partum until 1 year post partum. The primary outcomes are rates of recruitment, follow-up, adherence and attrition. The secondary outcomes are maternal dysglycaemia, cost and quality of life outcomes, and acceptability of the intervention to participants, and to healthcare professionals delivering the intervention. Feasibility outcomes will be reported using descriptive statistics.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained through the South Central—Berkshire Research Ethics Committee (19/SC/0064). Study findings will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals, as well as via newsletters made available to participants and members of Katie’s Team (a women’s health patient and public advisory group).Trial registration numberISRCTN40582975.

IntroductionUp to half of all women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus develop type 2 diabetes within 5 years after delivery. Metformin is effective in preventing type 2 diabetes in high-risk non-pregnant individuals, but its effect when commenced in the postnatal period is not known. We plan to assess the feasibility of evaluating metformin versus placebo in minimising the risk of dysglycaemia including type 2 diabetes after delivery in postnatal women with a history of gestational diabetes through a randomised trial.Methods and analysisOptimising health outcomes with Metformin to prevent diAbetes After pregnancy (OMAhA) is a multicentre placebo-controlled double-blind randomised feasibility trial, where we will randomly allocate 160 postnatal women with gestational diabetes treated with medication to either metformin (intervention) or placebo (control) tablets to be taken until 1 year after delivery. The primary outcomes are rates of recruitment, randomisation, adherence and attrition. The secondary outcomes are maternal dysglycaemia, cost and quality of life outcomes in both arms, and acceptability of the study and intervention, which will be evaluated through a nested qualitative study. Feasibility outcomes will be summarised using descriptive statistics, point estimates and 95% CIs.Ethics and disseminationThe OMAhA study received ethics approval from the London-Brent Research Ethics Committee (18/LO/0505). Trial findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, disseminated at conferences, through our Patient and Public Involvement advisory group (Katie’s Team) and through social media platforms.Trial registration numberISRCTN20930880

Time-lapse imaging systems for embryo incubation and selection might improve outcomes of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment due to undisturbed embryo culture conditions, improved embryo selection, or both. However, the benefit remains uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of time-lapse imaging systems providing undisturbed culture and embryo selection, and time-lapse imaging systems providing only undisturbed culture, and compared each with standard care without time-lapse imaging. We conducted a multicentre, three-parallel-group, double-blind, randomised controlled trial in participants undergoing IVF or ICSI at seven IVF centres in the UK and Hong Kong. Embryologists randomly assigned participants using a web-based system, stratified by clinic in a 1:1:1 ratio to the time-lapse imaging system for undisturbed culture and embryo selection (time-lapse imaging group), time-lapse imaging system for undisturbed culture alone (undisturbed culture group), and standard care without time-lapse imaging (control group). Women were required to be aged 18–42 years and men (ie, their partners) 18 years or older. Couples had to be receiving their first, second, or third IVF or ICSI treatment and could not participate if using donor gametes. Participants and trial staff were masked to group assignment, embryologists were not. The primary outcome was live birth. We performed analyses using the intention-to-treat principle and reported the main analysis in participants with primary outcome data available (full analysis set). The trial is registered on the International Trials Registry (ISRCTN17792989) and is now closed. 1575 participants were randomly assigned to treatment groups (525 participants per group) between June 21, 2018, and Sept 30, 2022. The live birth rates were 33·7% (175/520) in the time-lapse imaging group, 36·6% (189/516) in the undisturbed culture group, and 33·0% (172/522) in the standard care group. The adjusted odds ratio was 1·04 (97·5% CI 0·73 to 1·47) for time-lapse imaging arm versus control and 1·20 (0·85 to 1·70) for undisturbed culture versus control. The risk reduction for the absolute difference was 0·7 percentage points (97·5% CI –5·85 to 7·25) between the time-lapse imaging and standard care groups and 3·6 percentage points (–3·02 to 10·22) between the undisturbed culture and standard care groups. 79 serious adverse events unrelated to the trial were reported (n=28 in time-lapse imaging, n=27 in undisturbed culture, and n=24 in standard care). In women undergoing IVF or ICSI treatment, the use of time-lapse imaging systems for embryo culture and selection does not significantly increase the odds of live birth compared with standard care without time-lapse imaging. Barts Charity, Pharmasure Pharmaceuticals, Hong Kong OG Trust Fund, Hong Kong Health and Medical Research Fund, Hong Kong Matching Fund.