Explore the vast range of titles available.

Environmental education is vital for promoting pro-environmental behavior, and nature-contact environmental education has progressively emerged as an important form of environmental education. Therefore, exploring the effects and mechanisms of nature-contact environmental education is crucial to enhancing pro-environmental behavior. This manuscript focuses on the Qinling ecological environmental education course at a Chinese university, which exemplifies a form of nature-contact environmental education. The research employs the randomized controlled experimental design as the research methodology. A total of 112 students who participated in the course served as the study sample, with the aim of investigating whether nature-contact environmental education can effectively improve students’ pro-environmental behavior. Additionally, the study also explores the underlying mechanisms driving this effect. The findings indicate that nature-contact environmental education significantly contributes to improving students’ pro-environmental behavior. Furthermore, environmental attitudes and environmental responsibility are identified as key mediators in the relationship between nature-contact environmental education and pro-environmental behavior. These conclusions provide valuable insights for both theoretical research and practical applications of environmental education and pro-environmental behavior.

The CONSORT 2010 statement provides minimum guidelines for reporting randomized trials. Its widespread use has been instrumental in ensuring transparency in the evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate impact on health outcomes. The CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials–Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trials evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for clinical trial protocols: SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials–Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 29 candidate items, which were assessed by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a two-day consensus meeting (31 stakeholders) and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The CONSORT-AI extension includes 14 new items that were considered sufficiently important for AI interventions that they should be routinely reported in addition to the core CONSORT 2010 items. CONSORT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention is integrated, the handling of inputs and outputs of the AI intervention, the human–AI interaction and provision of an analysis of error cases. CONSORT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness in reporting clinical trials for AI interventions. It will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret and critically appraise the quality of clinical trial design and risk of bias in the reported outcomes. The CONSORT-AI and SPIRIT-AI extensions improve the transparency of clinical trial design and trial protocol reporting for artificial intelligence interventions.

The use of the stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial (SW-CRT) is on the increase, and although there are still relatively few SW-CRTs currently published its use is bound to show an increase in the near future. An extension of the CONSORT reporting guideline for SW-CRTs has recently been developed. By making reporting guidelines for this innovative design available relatively early in its development, it is possible that the methodological conduct and reporting of future SW-CRTs will not be at the same risk of low-quality of reporting as is the case with many other study designs. We provide a brief overview of this reporting guideline and encourage authors to use it appropriately; and for journal editors to endorse its use.

The protocol of a randomized trial is the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting and external review. However, trial protocols vary in their completeness and often do not address key elements of design and conduct. The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) statement was first published in 2013 as guidance to improve the completeness of trial protocols. Periodic updates incorporating the latest evidence and best practices are needed to ensure that the guidance remains relevant to users. Here, we aimed to systematically update the SPIRIT recommendations for minimum items to address in the protocol of a randomized trial. We completed a scoping review and developed a project-specific database of empirical and theoretical evidence to generate a list of potential changes to the SPIRIT 2013 checklist. The list was enriched with recommendations provided by lead authors of existing SPIRIT/CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extensions (Harms, Outcomes, Non-pharmacological Treatment) and other reporting guidelines (TIDieR). The potential modifications were rated in a three-round Delphi survey followed by a consensus meeting. Overall, 317 individuals participated in the Delphi consensus process and 30 experts attended the consensus meeting. The process led to the addition of two new protocol items, revision to five items, deletion/merger of five items, and integration of key items from other relevant reporting guidelines. Notable changes include a new open science section, additional emphasis on the assessment of harms and description of interventions and comparators, and a new item on how patients and the public will be involved in trial design, conduct and reporting. The updated SPIRIT 2025 statement consists of an evidence-based checklist of 34 minimum items to address in a trial protocol, along with a diagram illustrating the schedule of enrollment, interventions and assessments for trial participants. To facilitate implementation, we also developed an expanded version of the SPIRIT 2025 checklist and an accompanying explanation and elaboration document. Widespread endorsement and adherence to the updated SPIRIT 2025 statement have the potential to enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, funders, research ethics committees, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators and other reviewers. SPIRIT 2025 provides updated guidance to authors, reviewers and editors, when preparing clinical trial protocols to enhance their transparency and completeness.

Background The stepped wedge (SW) cluster randomized controlled trial (CRCT) design is being used with increasing frequency. However, there is limited published research on the quality of reporting of SW-CRCTs. We address this issue by conducting a literature review. Methods Medline, Ovid, Web of Knowledge, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, the ISRCTN registry, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to identify investigations employing the SW-CRCT design up to February 2015. For each included completed study, information was extracted on a selection of criteria, based on the CONSORT extension to CRCTs, to assess the quality of reporting. Results A total of 123 studies were included in our review, of which 39 were completed trial reports. The standard of reporting of SW-CRCTs varied in quality. The percentage of trials reporting each criterion varied to as low as 15.4%, with a median of 66.7%. Conclusions There is much room for improvement in the quality of reporting of SW-CRCTs. This is consistent with recent findings for CRCTs. A CONSORT extension for SW-CRCTs is warranted to standardize the reporting of SW-CRCTs.

In the cluster randomized crossover trial, a sequence of treatment conditions, rather than just one treatment condition, is assigned to each cluster. This contribution studies the optimal number of time periods in studies with a treatment switch at the end of each time period, and the optimal number of treatment switches in a trial with a fixed number of time periods. This is done for trials with a fixed number of clusters, and for trials in which the costs per cluster, subject, and treatment switch are taken into account using a budgetary constraint. The focus is on trials with a cross-sectional design where a continuous outcome variable is measured at the end of each time period. An exponential decay correlation structure is used to model dependencies among subjects within the same cluster. A linear multilevel mixed model is used to estimate the treatment effect and its associated variance. The optimal design minimizes this variance. Matrix algebra is used to identify the optimal design and other highly efficient designs. For a fixed number of clusters, a design with the maximum number of time periods is optimal and treatment switches should occur at each time period. However, when a budgetary constraint is taken into account, the optimal design may have fewer time periods and fewer treatment switches. The Shiny app was developed to facilitate the use of the methodology in this contribution.

Background Phase-3 clinical trials provide the highest level of evidence on drug safety and effectiveness needed for market approval by implementing large randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, 30–40% of these trials fail mainly because such studies have inadequate sample sizes, stemming from the inability to obtain accurate initial estimates of average treatment effect parameters. Methods To remove this obstacle from the drug development cycle, we present a new algorithm called Trend-Adaptive Design with a Synthetic-Intervention-Based Estimator (TAD-SIE) that powers a parallel-group trial, a standard RCT design, by leveraging a state-of-the-art hypothesis testing strategy and a novel trend-adaptive design (TAD). Specifically, TAD-SIE uses synthetic intervention (SI) to estimate individual treatment effects and thereby simulate a cross-over design, which makes it easier for a trial to reach target power within trial constraints (e.g., sample size limits). To estimate sample sizes, TAD-SIE implements a new TAD tailored to SI given that using it violates assumptions under standard TADs. In addition, our TAD overcomes the ineffectiveness of standard TADs by allowing sample sizes to be increased across iterations without any condition while controlling significance level with futility stopping. Our TAD also introduces a hyperparameter that enables trial designers to trade off between accuracy and efficiency (sample size and number of iterations) of the solution. Results On a real-world Phase-3 clinical RCT (i.e., a two-arm parallel-group superiority trial with an equal number of subjects per arm), TAD-SIE obtains operating points ranging between 63% to 84% power and 3% to 6% significance level in contrast to baseline algorithms that get at best 49% power and 6% significance level. Conclusion TAD-SIE is a superior TAD that can be used to reach typical target operating points but only for trials with rapidly measurable primary outcomes due to its sequential nature. The framework is useful to practitioners interested in leveraging the SI algorithm for their study design.

Background The two-period randomised crossover design can be advantageous over the parallel-group randomised controlled design with two study arms, yielding greater statistical power and requiring smaller sample sizes. However, a general assumption of the crossover design is that study participants return to their stable baseline state after the experimental treatment has been withdrawn, either immediately or following a wash-out period. Main body In this article, we describe an alternative paradigm for the crossover design, which assumes that participants do not return to their baseline after the experimental treatment has discontinued—in other words, a paradigm under which a persistent carry-over effect is anticipated and even desired after intervention cessation. Such a paradigm is suitable, for example, when investigating behaviour change interventions that aim to establish long-lasting health behaviours through, for example, patient education or counselling. We present sample size calculations and statistical simulations to illustrate that under this alternative paradigm, the randomised crossover design can still maintain greater power than the parallel-group randomised controlled design. Statistical simulations show that, under realistic assumptions of partial or full carry-over, the crossover design can maintain equal or greater power than the parallel-group design, particularly when between-subject heterogeneity is non-negligible. Conclusion Trialists may consider this approach when the nature or intention of the experimental treatment is contrary to the assumption of return to baseline.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are conducted under idealized and rigorously controlled conditions that may compromise their external validity. A literature review was conducted of published English language articles that reported the findings of studies assessing external validity by a comparison of the patient sample included in RCTs reporting on pharmaceutical interventions with patients from everyday clinical practice. The review focused on publications in the fields of cardiology, mental health, and oncology. A range of databases were interrogated (MEDLINE; EMBASE; Science Citation Index; Cochrane Methodology Register). Double-abstract review and data extraction were performed as per protocol specifications. Out of 5,456 de-duplicated abstracts, 52 studies met the inclusion criteria (cardiology, n = 20; mental health, n = 17; oncology, n = 15). Studies either performed an analysis of the baseline characteristics (demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical parameters) of RCT-enrolled patients compared with a real-world population, or assessed the proportion of real-world patients who would have been eligible for RCT inclusion following the application of RCT inclusion/exclusion criteria. Many of the included studies concluded that RCT samples are highly selected and have a lower risk profile than real-world populations, with the frequent exclusion of elderly patients and patients with co-morbidities. Calculation of ineligibility rates in individual studies showed that a high proportion of the general disease population was often excluded from trials. The majority of studies (n = 37 [71.2 %]) explicitly concluded that RCT samples were not broadly representative of real-world patients and that this may limit the external validity of the RCT. Authors made a number of recommendations to improve external validity. Findings from this review indicate that there is a need to improve the external validity of RCTs such that physicians treating patients in real-world settings have the appropriate evidence on which to base their clinical decisions. This goal could be achieved by trial design modification to include a more representative patient sample and by supplementing RCT evidence with data generated from observational studies. In general, a thoughtful approach to clinical evidence generation is required in which the trade-offs between internal and external validity are considered in a holistic and balanced manner.

Background When designing a randomised controlled trial (RCT), an important consideration is the sample size required. This is calculated from several components; one of which is the target difference. This study aims to review the currently reported methods of elicitation of the target difference as well as to quantify the target differences used in Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-funded trials. Methods Trials were identified from the National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment journal. A total of 177 RCTs published between 2006 and 2016 were assessed for eligibility. Eligibility was established by the design of the trial and the quality of data available. The trial designs were parallel-group, superiority RCTs with a continuous primary endpoint. Data were extracted and the standardised anticipated and observed effect size estimates were calculated. Exclusion criteria was based on trials not providing enough detail in the sample size calculation and results, and trials not being of parallel-group, superiority design. Results A total of 107 RCTs were included in the study from 102 reports. The most commonly reported method for effect size derivation was a review of evidence and use of previous research (52.3%). This was common across all clinical areas. The median standardised target effect size was 0.30 (interquartile range: 0.20–0.38), with the median standardised observed effect size 0.11 (IQR 0.05–0.29). The maximum anticipated and observed effect sizes were 0.76 and 1.18, respectively. Only two trials had anticipated target values above 0.60. Conclusion The most commonly reported method of elicitation of the target effect size is previous published research. The average target effect size was 0.3. A clear distinction between the target difference and the minimum clinically important difference is recommended when designing a trial. Transparent explanation of target difference elicitation is advised, with multiple methods including a review of evidence and opinion-seeking advised as the more optimal methods for effect size quantification.