Explore the vast range of titles available.

In patients with suspected coronary heart disease, single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) is the most widely used test for the assessment of myocardial ischaemia, but its diagnostic accuracy is reported to be variable and it exposes patients to ionising radiation. The aim of this study was to establish the diagnostic accuracy of a multiparametric cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) protocol with x-ray coronary angiography as the reference standard, and to compare CMR with SPECT, in patients with suspected coronary heart disease. In this prospective trial patients with suspected angina pectoris and at least one cardiovascular risk factor were scheduled for CMR, SPECT, and invasive x-ray coronary angiography. CMR consisted of rest and adenosine stress perfusion, cine imaging, late gadolinium enhancement, and MR coronary angiography. Gated adenosine stress and rest SPECT used 99mTc tetrofosmin. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy of CMR. This trial is registered at controlled-trials.com, number ISRCTN77246133. In the 752 recruited patients, 39% had significant CHD as identified by x-ray angiography. For multiparametric CMR the sensitivity was 86·5% (95% CI 81·8–90·1), specificity 83·4% (79·5–86·7), positive predictive value 77·2%, (72·1–81·6) and negative predictive value 90·5% (87·1–93·0). The sensitivity of SPECT was 66·5% (95% CI 60·4–72·1), specificity 82·6% (78·5–86·1), positive predictive value 71·4% (65·3–76·9), and negative predictive value 79·1% (74·8–82·8). The sensitivity and negative predictive value of CMR and SPECT differed significantly (p<0·0001 for both) but specificity and positive predictive value did not (p=0·916 and p=0·061, respectively). CE-MARC is the largest, prospective, real world evaluation of CMR and has established CMR's high diagnostic accuracy in coronary heart disease and CMR's superiority over SPECT. It should be adopted more widely than at present for the investigation of coronary heart disease. British Heart Foundation.

Most patients who have had a stroke are dependent on informal caregivers for activities of daily living. The TRACS trial investigated a training programme for caregivers (the London Stroke Carers Training Course, LSCTC) on physical and psychological outcomes, including cost-effectiveness, for patients and caregivers after a disabling stroke. We undertook a pragmatic, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial with a parallel cost-effectiveness analysis. Stroke units were eligible if four of five criteria used to define a stroke unit were met, a substantial number of patients on the unit had a diagnosis of stroke, staff were able to deliver the LSCTC, and most patients were discharged to a permanent place of residence. Stroke units were randomly assigned to either LSCTC or usual care (control group), stratified by geographical region and quality of care, and using blocks of size 2. Patients with a diagnosis of stroke, likely to return home with residual disability and with a caregiver providing support were eligible. The primary outcome for patients was self-reported extended activities of daily living at 6 months, measured with the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) scale. The primary outcome for caregivers was self-reported burden at 6 months, measured with the caregivers burden scale (CBS). We combined patient and caregiver costs with primary outcomes and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to assess cost-effectiveness. This trial is registered with controlled-trials.com, number ISRCTN 49208824. We assessed 49 stroke units for eligibility, of which 36 were randomly assigned to either the intervention group or the control group. Between Feb 27, 2008, and Feb 9, 2010, 928 patient and caregiver dyads were registered, of which 450 were in the intervention group, and 478 in the control group. Patients' self-reported extended activities of daily living did not differ between groups at 6 months (adjusted mean NEADL score 27·4 in the intervention group versus 27·6 in the control group, difference –0·2 points [95% CI –3·0 to 2·5], p value=0·866, ICC=0·027). The caregiver burden scale did not differ between groups either (adjusted mean CBS 45·5 in the intervention group versus 45·0 in the control group, difference 0·5 points [95% CI –1·7 to 2·7], p value=0·660, ICC=0·013). Patient and caregiver costs were similar in both groups (length of the initial stroke admission and associated costs were £13 127 for the intervention group and £12 471 for the control group; adjusted mean difference £1243 [95% CI –1533 to 4019]; p value=0·380). Probabilities of cost-effectiveness based on QALYs were low. In a large scale, robust evaluation, results from this study have shown no differences between the LSCTC and usual care on any of the assessed outcomes. The immediate period after stroke might not be the ideal time to deliver structured caregiver training. Medical Research Council.

Background Realist methodologies are increasingly being used to evaluate complex interventions in health and social care. Programme theory (ideas and assumptions of how a particular intervention works) development is the first step in a realist evaluation or a realist synthesis, with literature reviews providing important evidence to support this. Deciding how to search for programme theories is challenging and there is limited guidance available. Using an example of identifying programme theories for a realist evaluation of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instruments in clinical practice, the authors explore and compare several different approaches to literature searching and highlight important methodological considerations for those embarking on a programme theory review. Methods We compared the performance of an academic database search with a simple Google search and developed an optimised search strategy for the identification primary references (i.e. documents providing the clearest examples of programme theories) associated with the use of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instruments (PU-RAIs). We identified the number of primary references and the total number of references retrieved per source. We then calculated the number needed to read (NNR) expressed as the total number of titles and abstracts screened to identify one relevant reference from each source. Results The academic database search (comprising CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, HMIC, Medline) identified 2 /10 primary references with a NNR of 1395.The Google search identified 7/10 primary references with a NNR of 10.1. The combined NNR was 286.3. The optimised search combining Google and CINAHL identified 10/10 primary references with a NNR of 40.2. Conclusion The striking difference between the efficiency of the review’s academic database and Google searches in finding relevant references prompted an in-depth comparison of the two types of search. The findings indicate the importance of including grey literature sources such as Google in this particular programme theory search, while acknowledging the need for transparency of methods. Further research is needed to facilitate improved guidance for programme theory searches to enhance practice in the realist field and to save researcher time and therefore resource.

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 Poor and variable implementation of childhood obesity prevention programmes reduces their population impact and sustainability. We drew upon ethnographic work to develop a multi-level, theory-based implementation optimisation intervention. This intervention aimed to promote parental enrolment and attendance at HENRY (Health Exercise Nutrition for the Really Young), a UK community obesity prevention programme, by changing behaviours of children’s centre and local authority stakeholders. Methods We evaluated the effectiveness of the implementation optimisation intervention on HENRY programme enrolment and attendance over a 12-month implementation period in a cluster randomised controlled trial. We randomised 20 local government authorities (with 126 children’s centres) to HENRY plus the implementation optimisation intervention or to HENRY alone. Primary outcomes were (1) the proportion of centres enrolling at least eight parents per programme and (2) the proportion of centres with a minimum of 75% of parents attending at least five of eight sessions per programme. Trial analyses adjusted for stratification factors (pre-randomisation implementation of HENRY, local authority size, deprivation) and allowed for cluster design. A parallel mixed-methods process evaluation used qualitative interviews and routine monitoring to explain trial results. Results Neither primary outcome differed significantly between groups; 17.8% of intervention centres and 18.0% of control centres achieved the parent enrolment target (adjusted difference − 1.2%; 95% CI − 19.5%, 17.1%); 17.1% of intervention centres and 13.9% of control centres achieved the attendance target (adjusted difference 1.2%; 95% CI − 15.7%, 18.1%). Unexpectedly, the trial coincided with substantial national service restructuring, including centre closures and reduced funds. Some commissioning and management teams stopped or reduced delivery of both HENRY and the implementation optimisation intervention due to competing demands. Thus, at follow-up, HENRY programmes were delivered to approximately half the number of parents compared to baseline ( n = 433 vs. 881). Conclusions During a period in which services were reduced by external policies, this first definitive trial found no evidence of effectiveness for an implementation optimisation intervention promoting parent enrolment to and attendance at an obesity prevention programme. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02675699 . Registered on 4 February 2016

IntroductionHand eczema (HE) is one of the most common skin disorders and an important cause for morbidity and occupational disability. The 1-year prevalence of HE is estimated to be up to 10% and it is estimated that 5%–7% of those develop severe chronic HE. However, current clinical evidence is not compelling enough to guide clinical practice. In a survey among 194 UK dermatologists the most frequent first choice approaches were psoralen combined with ultraviolet A (UVA) treatment (PUVA), oral steroids and alitretinoin (AL). When asked which strategy was most efficient for long-term outcome 20% of clinicians indicated they did not know; 43% of clinicians reported AL and 30% reported PUVA.Methods and analysisALPHA is a multicentre, open, prospective, two-arm parallel group, randomised controlled trial comparing PUVA and AL with a planned sample size re-estimation. Between 500 and 780 participants will be randomised on a 1:1 basis. The physician’s global assessment (PGA) will direct treatment after randomisation, non-responders will be treated according to usual clinical practice; providing valuable pilot data on second line therapeutic approaches to inform future trials.Assessments will be conducted up to 52 weeks post randomisation. The primary outcome measure is the Hand Eczema Severity Index at 12 weeks. Secondary outcome measures include modified Total Lesion Symptom Score, PGA, time to relapse, patient reported outcome measures and DNA extraction and assessment of genetic variants. A substudy on molecular inflammatory mediators will provide information on subgroup specific treatment responses. Photographs will be taken and HE severity assessed by a central review panel.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from Leeds West Research Ethics Committee (14/YH/1259).Trial results will be disseminated at relevant clinical conferences and societies, published in peer-reviewed journals and through relevant patient groups.Trial registration numberISRCTN80206075.

Background Core outcome sets (COS) are being developed in many clinical areas to increase the quality and comparability of clinical trial results as well as to ensure their relevance for patients. A COS represents an agreed standardized set of outcomes that describes the minimum that should be consistently reported in all clinical trials of a defined area. It comprises a core domain set (defining what core outcomes should be measured) and a core measurement set (defining measurement/assessment instruments for each core domain). For pressure ulcer prevention trials a COS is lacking. The great heterogeneity of reported outcomes in this field indicates the need for a COS. Methods/design The first part of this project aims to develop a core domain set by following established methods, which incorporates four steps: (1) definition of the scope, (2) conducting a scoping review, (3) organizing facilitated workshops with service users, (4) performing Delphi surveys and establishing consensus in a face-to-face meeting with different stakeholders. Discussion After achieving consensus on the core domain set, further work will be undertaken to determine a corresponding core measurement set. This will lead to better pressure ulcer prevention research in the future. There are a number of methodological challenges in the field of COS development. To meet these challenges and to ensure a high-quality COS, the OUTPUTS project affiliates to current standards and works in close collaboration with international experts and with existing international service user groups. Trial registration The OUTPUTs project is registered in the COMET database: ( http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/283 ). Registered on 2015.

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