Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundGallstone disease (cholelithiasis) is common. In most people it is asymptomatic and does not require treatment, but in about 20% it can become symptomatic, causing pain and other complications requiring medical attention and/or surgery. A proportion of symptomatic people with uncomplicated gallstone disease do not experience further episodes of pain and, therefore, could be treated conservatively. Moreover, surgery carries risks of perioperative and postoperative complications.Methods and analysisC-Gall is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation to assess whether cholecystectomy is cost-effective compared with observation/ conservative management (here after referred to as medical management) at 18 months post-randomisation (with internal pilot).Primary outcome measurePatient-reported quality of life (QoL) (36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) bodily pain domain) up to 18 months after randomisation.The primary economic outcome is incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained at 18 months.Secondary outcome measuresSecondary outcome measures include condition-specific QoL, SF-36 domains, complications, further treatment, persistent symptoms, healthcare resource use, and costs assessed at 18 and 24 months after randomisation. The bodily pain domain of the SF-36 will also be assessed at 24 months after randomisation.A sample size of 430 participants was calculated. Computer-generated 1:1 randomisation was used.The C-Gall Study is currently in follow-up in 20 UK research centres. The first patient was randomised on 1 August 2016, with follow-up to be completed by 30 November 2021.Statistical analysisStatistical analysis of the primary outcome will be intention-to-treat and a per-protocol analysis. The primary outcome, area under the curve (AUC) for the SF-36 bodily pain up to 18 months, will be generated using the Trapezium rule and analysed using linear regression with adjustment for the minimisation variables (recruitment site, sex and age). For the secondary outcome, SF-36 bodily pain, AUC up to 24 months will be analysed in a similar way. Other secondary outcomes will be analysed using generalised linear models with adjustment for minimisation and baseline variables, as appropriate. Statistical significance will be at the two-sided 5% level with corresponding CIs.Ethics and disseminationThe North of Scotland Research Ethics Committee approved this study (16/NS/0053). The dissemination plans include Health Technology Assessment monograph, international scientific meetings and publications in high-impact, open-access journals.Trial registration numberISRCTN55215960; pre-results.

BackgroundLower gastrointestinal symptoms attributed to colorectal disease are common. Early diagnosis of serious colorectal disease such as colorectal cancer (CRC), precancerous growths (polyps) and inflammation is important to ensure the best possible outcomes for a patient. The current ‘gold standard’ diagnostic test is colonoscopy. Colonoscopy is an invasive procedure. Some people struggle to cope with it and require intravenous sedation and/or analgesia. It is also resource-intensive, needing to be performed in specialist endoscopy units by a trained team. Across the UK, the demand for colonoscopy is outstripping capacity and the diagnosis of colorectal disease is being delayed. A colon capsule endoscope (CCE) is an alternative colorectal diagnostic. It is a ‘camera in a pill’ that can be swallowed and which passes through the gastrointestinal tract, obtaining visual images on the colon. There is now established experience of CCE in the UK. CCE might provide a less invasive method to diagnose colorectal disease if found to be accurate and effective and provide a means by which to increase the National Health Service (NHS) diagnostic capacity.Aims and objectivesThe aim of this study is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of CCE when compared with colonoscopy in representative and clinically meaningful cohorts of patients. An evaluation of the experiences of CCE for the patient and clinical team and an assessment of cost effectiveness will be undertaken.MethodsWe will undertake three research workstreams (WS). In WS1, we shall perform a paired (back-to-back) study. Each participant will swallow the CCE and then later on the same day they will have a colonoscopy. The study has been designed in collaboration with our Patient Advisory Group and as closely mirrors standard care as is possible. 973 participants will be recruited from three representative clinical contexts; suspected CRC, suspected inflammatory bowel disease and postpolypectomy surveillance. Up to 30 sites across the UK will be involved to maximise inclusivity. Measures of diagnostic accuracy will be reported along with CCE completion rates, number of colonoscopy procedures potentially prevented and adverse events, such as capsule retention. A nested substudy of intraobserver and interobserver agreement will be performed. WS2 will develop models of cost-effectiveness and WS3 will evaluate the patient and clinician experience, with reference to acceptability and choice.Anticipated impactThe study findings will provide the evidence base to inform future colorectal diagnostic services.Ethics and disseminationThe study has approval from the North East—Tyne and Wear South research ethics committee (REC reference 24/NE/0178, IRAS 331349). The findings will be disseminated to the NHS, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, other clinical stakeholders and participants, patients and the public.Trial registration numberISRCTN16126290.

Background Return of gastrointestinal (GI) function is fundamental to patient recovery after colorectal surgery and is required before patients can be discharged from hospital safely. Up to 40% of patients suffer delayed return of GI function after colorectal surgery, causing nausea, vomiting and abdominal discomfort, resulting in longer hospital stay. Small, randomised studies have suggested perioperative intravenous (IV) lidocaine, which has analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects, may accelerate return of GI function after colorectal surgery. The ALLEGRO trial is a pragmatic effectiveness study to assess the benefit of perioperative IV lidocaine in improving return of GI function after elective minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) colorectal surgery. Methods United Kingdom (UK) multi-centre double blind placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial in 562 patients undergoing elective minimally invasive colorectal resection. IV lidocaine or placebo will be infused for 6–12 h commencing at the start of surgery as an adjunct to usual analgesic/anaesthetic technique. The primary outcome will be return of GI function. Discussion A 6–12-h perioperative intravenous infusion of 2% lidocaine is a cheap addition to usual anaesthetic/analgesic practice in elective colorectal surgery with a low incidence of adverse side-effects. If successful in achieving quicker return of gut function for more patients, it would reduce the rate of postoperative ileus and reduce the duration of inpatient recovery, resulting in reduced pain and discomfort with faster recovery and discharge from hospital. Since colorectal surgery is a common procedure undertaken in every acute hospital in the UK, a reduced length of stay and reduced rate of postoperative ileus would accrue significant cost savings for the National Health Service (NHS). Trial registration EudraCT Number 2017-003835-12; REC Number 17/WS/0210 the trial was prospectively registered (ISRCTN Number: ISRCTN52352431 ); date of registration 13 June 2018; date of enrolment of first participant 14 August 2018.

Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Beta blockers are well-established drugs widely used to treat cardiovascular conditions. Observational studies consistently report that beta blocker use in people with COPD is associated with a reduced risk of COPD exacerbations. The bisoprolol in COPD study (BICS) investigates whether adding bisoprolol to routine COPD treatment has clinical and cost-effective benefits. A sub-study will risk stratify participants for heart failure to investigate whether any beneficial effect of bisoprolol is restricted to those with unrecognised heart disease. Methods BICS is a pragmatic randomised parallel group double-blind placebo-controlled trial conducted in UK primary and secondary care sites. The major inclusion criteria are an established predominant respiratory diagnosis of COPD (post-bronchodilator FEV 1 < 80% predicted, FEV 1 /FVC < 0.7), a self-reported history of ≥ 2 exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids in a 12-month period since March 2019, age ≥ 40 years and a smoking history ≥ 10 pack years. A computerised randomisation system will allocate 1574 participants with equal probability to intervention or control groups, stratified by centre and recruitment in primary/secondary care. The intervention is bisoprolol (1.25 mg tablets) or identical placebo. The dose of bisoprolol/placebo is titrated up to a maximum of 4 tablets a day (5 mg bisoprolol) over 4–7 weeks depending on tolerance to up-dosing of bisoprolol/placebo—these titration assessments are completed by telephone or video call. Participants complete the remainder of the 52-week treatment period on the final titrated dose (1, 2, 3, 4 tablets) and during that time are followed up at 26 and 52 weeks by telephone or video call. The primary outcome is the total number of participant reported COPD exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and/or antibiotics during the 52-week treatment period. A sub-study will risk stratify participants for heart failure by echocardiography and measurement of blood biomarkers. Discussion The demonstration that bisoprolol reduces the incidence of exacerbations would be relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to healthcare providers, in the UK and globally. Trial registration Current controlled trials ISRCTN10497306 . Registered on 16 August 2018

Background Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a frequent adverse effect for men undergoing prostate surgery. A large proportion (around 8% after radical prostatectomy and 2% after transurethral resection of prostate (TURP)) are left with severe disabling incontinence which adversely effects their quality of life and many are reliant on containment measures such as pads (27% and 6% respectively). Surgery is currently the only option for active management of the problem. The overwhelming majority of surgeries for persistent bothersome SUI involve artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) insertion. However, this is expensive, and necessitates manipulation of a pump to enable voiding. More recently, an alternative to AUS has been developed – a synthetic sling for men which elevates the urethra, thus treating SUI. This is thought, by some, to be less invasive, more acceptable and less expensive than AUS but clear evidence for this is lacking. The MASTER trial aims to determine whether the male synthetic sling is non-inferior to implantation of the AUS for men who have SUI after prostate surgery (for cancer or benign disease), judged primarily on clinical effectiveness but also considering relative harms and cost-effectiveness. Methods/design Men with urodynamic stress incontinence (USI) after prostate surgery, for whom surgery is judged appropriate, are the target population. We aim to recruit men from secondary care urological centres in the UK NHS who carry out surgery for post-prostatectomy incontinence. Outcomes will be assessed by participant-completed questionnaires and 3-day urinary bladder diaries at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months. The 24-h urinary pad test will be used at baseline as an objective assessment of urine loss. Clinical data will be completed at the time of surgery to provide details of the operative procedures, complications and resource use in hospital. At 12 months, men will also have a clinical review to evaluate the results of surgery (including another 24-h pad test) and to identify problems or need for further treatment. Discussion A robust examination of the comparative effectiveness of the male synthetic sling will provide high-quality evidence to determine whether or not it should be adopted widely in the NHS. Trial registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry: Number ISRCTN49212975 . Registered on 22 July 2013. First patient randomised on 29 January 2014.

Background Many adverse pregnancy outcomes in the UK could be prevented with better intrapartum care. Training for intrapartum emergencies has been widely recommended but there are conflicting data about their effectiveness. Observational studies have shown sustained local improvements in perinatal outcomes associated with the use of the PRactical Obstetric Multi-Professional Training – (PROMPT) training package. However this effect needs to be investigated in the context of randomised study design in settings other than enthusiastic early adopter single-centres. The main aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of PROMPT to reduce the rate of term infants born with low APGAR scores. Methods THISTLE (Trial of Hands-on Interprofessional Simulation Training for Local Emergencies) is a multi-centre stepped-wedge clustered randomised controlled superiority trial conducted across 12 large Maternity Units in Scotland. On the basis of prior observational findings all Units have been offered the intervention and have been randomly allocated in groups of four Units, to one of three intervention time periods, each six months apart. Teams of four multi-professional clinicians from each participating Unit attended a two-day PROMPT Train the Trainers (T3) programme prior to the start of their allocated intervention step. Following the T3 training, the teams commenced the implementation of local intrapartum emergency training in their own Units by the start of their allocated intervention period. Blinding has not been possible due to the nature of the intervention. The aim of the study is to follow up each Unit for at least 12-months after they have commenced their local courses. The primary outcome for the study is the proportion of Apgar scores <7 at 5 min for term vaginal or emergency caesarean section births (≥37 weeks) occurring in each of the study Units. These data will be extracted from the Information Services Division Scottish Morbidity Record 02, a national routine data collection on pregnancy and births. Mixed or marginal logistic regression will be employed for the main analysis. Discussion THISTLE is the first stepped wedge cluster randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness of an intrapartum emergencies training programme. The results will inform training, trainers and policy going forward. Trial registration ISRCTN11640515 (registered on 09/09/2013).

Background Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem affecting approximately 1.5 million women in England and Wales with a major impact on their physical, emotional, social and material quality of life. It is the fourth most common reason why women attend gynaecology outpatient clinics and accounts for one-fifth of all gynaecology outpatient referrals. Initial treatment in primary care is medical - either by means of oral or injected medication or the levonorgestrel-intrauterine system (Mirena®). If medical treatment fails then surgical treatment can be offered, either endometrial ablation (EA), which destroys the lining of the cavity of the uterus (endometrium), or hysterectomy, i.e. surgical removal of the uterus. While effective, conventional hysterectomy is invasive and carries a risk of complications due to injury to other pelvic structures. The procedure can be simplified and complications minimised by undertaking a ‘supracervical’ hysterectomy where the cervix is left in situ and only the body of the uterus removed. Recent advances in endoscopic technologies have facilitated increased use of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) which can be performed as a day-case procedure and is relatively easy for the surgeon to learn. HEALTH (Hysterectomy or Endometrial AbLation Trial for Heavy menstrual bleeding) aims to address the question ‘Is LASH superior to second generation EA for the treatment of HMB in terms of clinical and cost effectiveness?’ Methods/Design Women aged < 50 years, with HMB, in whom medical treatment has failed and who are eligible for EA will be considered for trial entry. We aim to recruit women from approximately 30 active secondary care centres in the UK NHS who carry out both surgical procedures. All women who consent will complete a diary of pain symptoms from day 1 to day 14 after surgery, postal questionnaires at six weeks and six months after surgery and 15 months post randomisation. Healthcare utilisation questions will also be completed at the six-week, six-month and 15-month time-points. Discussion Measuring the comparative effectiveness of LASH vs EA will provide the robust evidence required to determine whether the new technique should be adopted widely in the NHS. Trial registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN49013893 . Registered on 28 January 2014.

Background Laparoscopic surgery has become the preferred approach for many procedures because of reduced post-operative pain, better recovery, shorter hospital stay and improved cosmesis. Single incision laparoscopic surgery is one of the many recent variants where either standard ports or a specially designed single multi-channel port is introduced through a single skin incision. While the cosmetic advantage of this is obvious, the evidence base for claims of reduced morbidity and better post-operative recovery is weak. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of single port/incision laparoscopic appendicectomy with standard three-port laparoscopic appendicectomy in adult patients at six weeks post-surgery. We also wish to assess the feasibility of a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing single port/incision laparoscopic surgery with standard three-port laparoscopic surgery for other surgical techniques. Methods and design Patients diagnosed with suspected appendicitis and requiring surgical treatment will be randomised to receive either standard three-port or single incision laparoscopic surgery. Data will be collected from clinical notes, operation notes and patient reported questionnaires. The following outcomes will be considered: 1. Effectiveness of the surgical procedure in terms of: •patient reported outcomes •clinical outcomes •resource use 2. Feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in the emergency surgical setting by quantifying: •patient eligibility •randomisation acceptability •feasibility of blinding participants to the intervention received •completion rates of case report forms and patient reported questionnaires Trial registration ISRCTN66443895 (assigned 10 March 2011, first patient randomised 09 January 2011)

ObjectiveTo assess whether the implementation of an intrapartum training package (PROMPT (PRactical Obstetric Multi-Professional Training)) across a health service reduced the proportion of term babies born with Apgar score <7 at 5 min (<75mins).DesignStepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial.SettingTwelve randomised maternity units with ≥900 births/year in Scotland. Three additional units were included in a supplementary analysis to assess the effect across Scotland. The intervention commenced in March 2014 with follow-up until September 2016.InterventionThe PROMPT training package (Second edition), with subsequent unit-level implementation of PROMPT courses for all maternity staff.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of term babies with Apgar<75mins.Results87 204 eligible births (99.2% with an Apgar score), of which 1291 infants had an Apgar<75mins were delivered in the 12 randomised maternity units. Two units did not implement the intervention. The overall Apgar<75mins rate observed in the 12 randomised units was 1.49%, increasing from 1.32% preintervention to 1.59% postintervention. Once adjusted for a secular time trend, the ‘intention-to-treat’ analysis indicated a moderate but non-significant reduction in the rate of term babies with an Apgar scores <75mins following PROMPT training (OR=0.79 95%CI(0.63 to 1.01)). However, some units implemented the intervention earlier than their allocated step, whereas others delayed the intervention. The content and authenticity of the implemented intervention varied widely at unit level. When the actual date of implementation of the intervention in each unit was considered in the analysis, there was no evidence of improvement (OR=1.01 (0.84 to 1.22)). No intervention effect was detected by broadening the analysis to include all 15 large Scottish maternity units. Units with a history of higher rates of Apgar<75mins maintained higher Apgar rates during the study (OR=2.09 (1.28 to 3.41)) compared with units with pre-study rates aligned to the national rate.ConclusionsPROMPT training, as implemented, had no effect on the rate of Apgar <75mins in Scotland during the study period. Local implementation at scale was found to be more difficult than anticipated. Further research is required to understand why the positive effects observed in other single-unit studies have not been replicated in Scottish maternity units, and how units can be best supported to locally implement the intervention authentically and effectively.Trial registration number ISRCTN11640515.

Heavy menstrual bleeding affects 25% of women in the UK, many of whom require surgery to treat it. Hysterectomy is effective but has more complications than endometrial ablation, which is less invasive but ultimately leads to hysterectomy in 20% of women. We compared laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with endometrial ablation in women seeking surgical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding. In this parallel-group, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial in 31 hospitals in the UK, women younger than 50 years who were referred to a gynaecologist for surgical treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding and who were eligible for endometrial ablation were randomly allocated (1:1) to either laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy or second generation endometrial ablation. Women were randomly assigned by either an interactive voice response telephone system or an internet-based application with a minimisation algorithm based on centre and age group (<40 years vs ≥40 years). Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy involves laparoscopic (keyhole) surgery to remove the upper part of the uterus (the body) containing the endometrium. Endometrial ablation aims to treat heavy menstrual bleeding by destroying the endometrium, which is responsible for heavy periods. The co-primary clinical outcomes were patient satisfaction and condition-specific quality of life, measured with the menorrhagia multi-attribute quality of life scale (MMAS), assessed at 15 months after randomisation. Our analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle. The trial was registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN49013893. Between May 21, 2014, and March 28, 2017, we enrolled and randomly assigned 660 women (330 in each group). 616 (93%) of 660 women were operated on within the study period, 588 (95%) of whom received the allocated procedure and 28 (5%) of whom had an alternative surgery. At 15 months after randomisation, more women allocated to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy were satisfied with their operation compared with those in the endometrial ablation group (270 [97%] of 278 women vs 244 [87%] of 280 women; adjusted percentage difference 9·8, 95% CI 5·1–14·5; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2·53, 95% CI 1·83–3·48; p<0·0001). Women randomly assigned to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy were also more likely to have the best possible MMAS score of 100 than women assigned to endometrial ablation (180 [69%] of 262 women vs 146 [54%] of 268 women; adjusted percentage difference 13·3, 95% CI 3·8–22·8; adjusted OR 1·87, 95% CI 1·31–2·67; p=0·00058). 14 (5%) of 309 women in the laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy group and 11 (4%) of 307 women in the endometrial ablation group had at least one serious adverse event (adjusted OR 1·30, 95% CI 0·56–3·02; p=0·54). Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy is superior to endometrial ablation in terms of clinical effectiveness and has a similar proportion of complications, but takes longer to perform and is associated with a longer recovery. UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.