Trials Methodology Research Network

The selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial when designing clinical trials in order to compare the effects of different interventions directly. For the findings to influence policy and practice, the outcomes need to be relevant and important to key stakeholders including patients and the public, health care professionals and others making decisions about health care. It is now widely acknowledged that insufficient attention has been paid to the choice of outcomes measured in clinical trials. Researchers are increasingly addressing this issue through the development and use of a core outcome set, an agreed standardised collection of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all trials for a specific clinical area.Accumulating work in this area has identified the need for guidance on the development, implementation, evaluation and updating of core outcome sets. This Handbook, developed by the COMET Initiative, brings together current thinking and methodological research regarding those issues. We recommend a four-step process to develop a core outcome set. The aim is to update the contents of the Handbook as further research is identified.

BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets (COS) can enhance the relevance of research by ensuring that outcomes of importance to health service users and other people making choices about health care in a particular topic area are measured routinely. Over 200 COS to date have been developed, but the clarity of these reports is suboptimal. COS studies will not achieve their goal if reports of COS are not complete and transparent. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In recognition of these issues, an international group that included experienced COS developers, methodologists, journal editors, potential users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patient representatives developed the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting (COS-STAR) Statement as a reporting guideline for COS studies. The developmental process consisted of an initial reporting item generation stage and a two-round Delphi survey involving nearly 200 participants representing key stakeholder groups, followed by a consensus meeting. The COS-STAR Statement consists of a checklist of 18 items considered essential for transparent and complete reporting in all COS studies. The checklist items focus on the introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of a manuscript describing the development of a particular COS. A limitation of the COS-STAR Statement is that it was developed without representative views of low- and middle-income countries. COS have equal relevance to studies conducted in these areas, and, subsequently, this guideline may need to evolve over time to encompass any additional challenges from developing COS in these areas. CONCLUSIONS: With many ongoing COS studies underway, the COS-STAR Statement should be a helpful resource to improve the reporting of COS studies for the benefit of all COS users.

Nitric oxide (NO) is a short-lived, pleiotropic molecule that affects numerous critical functions in the body. Presently, there are markedly conflicting findings in the literature regarding NO and its role in carcinogenesis and tumor progression. NO has been shown to have dichotomous effects on cellular proliferation, apoptosis, migration, invasion, angiogenesis and many other important processes in cancer biology. It has been shown to be both pro- and antitumorigenic, depending on the concentration and the tumor microenvironment in question. NO is generated by three isoforms of NO synthase (NOS) that are widely expressed and sometimes upregulated in human tumors. Due to its vast array of physiological functions, it presents a huge challenge to researchers to discover its true potential in cancer biology and consequently, its use in anticancer therapies. In this study, we review the current knowledge in this area, with an emphasis placed on NO modulation as an anticancer therapy, focusing on NO-donating drugs and NOS inhibitors.

Randomised trials are a central component of all evidence-informed health care systems and the evidence coming from them helps to support health care users, health professionals and others to make more informed decisions about treatment. The evidence available to trialists to support decisions on design, conduct and reporting of randomised trials is, however, sparse. Trial Forge is an initiative that aims to increase the evidence base for trial decision-making and in doing so, to improve trial efficiency.One way to fill gaps in evidence is to run Studies Within A Trial, or SWATs. This guidance document provides a brief definition of SWATs, an explanation of why they are important and some practical 'top tips' that come from existing experience of doing SWATs. We hope the guidance will be useful to trialists, methodologists, funders, approvals agencies and others in making clear what a SWAT is, as well as what is involved in doing one.

BACKGROUND: Different forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS-CoV-2. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID-19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes. We synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty-two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty-nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two-month follow-up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. Overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. We identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available. This abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, severe and critical COVID-19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO-approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO-approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high-certainty evidence). Confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy (VE): BNT162b2: 97.84%, 95% CI 44.25% to 99.92%; 2 RCTs, 44,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 93.20%, 95% CI 91.06% to 94.83%; 2 RCTs, 31,632 participants; ChAdOx1: 70.23%, 95% CI 62.10% to 76.62%; 2 RCTs, 43,390 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 66.90%, 95% CI 59.10% to 73.40%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 78.10%, 95% CI 64.80% to 86.30%; 1 RCT, 25,463 participants; BBV152: 77.80%, 95% CI 65.20% to 86.40%; 1 RCT, 16,973 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) probably reduces the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE 82.91%, 95% CI 50.49% to 94.10%; 3 RCTs, 42,175 participants). There is low-certainty evidence for CoronaVac (Sinovac) for this outcome (VE 69.81%, 95% CI 12.27% to 89.61%; 2 RCTs, 19,852 participants). Severe or critical COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 result in a large reduction in incidence of severe or critical disease due to COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE: BNT162b2: 95.70%, 95% CI 73.90% to 99.90%; 1 RCT, 46,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 98.20%, 95% CI 92.80% to 99.60%; 1 RCT, 28,451 participants; AD26.COV2.S: 76.30%, 95% CI 57.90% to 87.50%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBV152: 93.40%, 95% CI 57.10% to 99.80%; 1 RCT, 16,976 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 probably reduces the incidence of severe or critical COVID-19 (VE 100.00%, 95% CI 86.99% to 100.00%; 1 RCT, 25,452 participants). Two trials reported high efficacy of CoronaVac for severe or critical disease with wide CIs, but these results could not be pooled. Serious adverse events (SAEs) mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)/SII-ChAdOx1 (Serum Institute of India), Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 probably result in little or no difference in SAEs compared to placebo (RR: mRNA-1273: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 34,072 participants; ChAdOx1/SII-ChAdOx1: 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07; 7 RCTs, 58,182 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants); BBV152: 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 25,928 participants). In each of these, the likely absolute difference in effects was fewer than 5/1000 participants. Evidence for SAEs is uncertain for BNT162b2, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, and NVX-CoV2373 compared to placebo (RR: BNT162b2: 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; 2 RCTs, 46,107 participants; CoronaVac: 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 23,139 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 26,924 participants; NVX-CoV2373: 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 38,802 participants). For the evaluation of heterologous schedules, booster doses, and efficacy against variants of concern, see main text of review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com). Implications for practice Due to the trial exclusions, these results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or immunocompromized people. Most trials had a short follow-up and were conducted before the emergence of variants of concern. Implications for research Future research should evaluate the long-term effect of vaccines, compare different vaccines and vaccine schedules, assess vaccine efficacy and safety in specific populations, and include outcomes such as preventing long COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against emerging variants of concern is also vital.

Realist evaluations are increasingly used in the study of complex health interventions. The methodological procedures applied within realist evaluations however are often inexplicit, prompting scholars to call for increased transparency and more detailed description within realist studies. This publication details the data analysis and synthesis process used within two realist evaluation studies of community health interventions taking place across Uganda, Tanzania, and Kenya. Using data from several case studies across all three countries and the data analysis software NVivo, we describe in detail how data were analyzed and subsequently synthesized to refine middle-range theories. We conclude by discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the approach taken, providing novel methodological recommendations. The aim of providing this detailed descriptive account of the analysis and synthesis in these two studies is to promote transparency and contribute to the advancement of realist evaluation methodologies.

Collagen-based devices, in various physical conformations, are extensively used for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine applications. Given that the natural cross-linking pathway of collagen does not occur in vitro, chemical, physical, and biological cross-linking methods have been assessed over the years to control mechanical stability, degradation rate, and immunogenicity of the device upon implantation. Although in vitro data demonstrate that mechanical properties and degradation rate can be accurately controlled as a function of the cross-linking method utilized, preclinical and clinical data indicate that cross-linking methods employed may have adverse effects on host response, especially when potent cross-linking methods are employed. Experimental data suggest that more suitable cross-linking methods should be developed to achieve a balance between stability and functional remodeling.

BACKGROUND: An evidence-based approach to health care is recognized internationally as a key competency for healthcare practitioners. This overview systematically evaluated and organized evidence from systematic reviews on teaching evidence-based health care (EBHC). METHODS/FINDINGS: We searched for systematic reviews evaluating interventions for teaching EBHC to health professionals compared to no intervention or different strategies. Outcomes covered EBHC knowledge, skills, attitudes, practices and health outcomes. Comprehensive searches were conducted in April 2013. Two reviewers independently selected eligible reviews, extracted data and evaluated methodological quality. We included 16 systematic reviews, published between 1993 and 2013. There was considerable overlap across reviews. We found that 171 source studies included in the reviews related to 81 separate studies, of which 37 are in more than one review. Studies used various methodologies to evaluate educational interventions of varying content, format and duration in undergraduates, interns, residents and practicing health professionals. The evidence in the reviews showed that multifaceted, clinically integrated interventions, with assessment, led to improvements in knowledge, skills and attitudes. Interventions improved critical appraisal skills and integration of results into decisions, and improved knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour amongst practicing health professionals. Considering single interventions, EBHC knowledge and attitude were similar for lecture-based versus online teaching. Journal clubs appeared to increase clinical epidemiology and biostatistics knowledge and reading behavior, but not appraisal skills. EBHC courses improved appraisal skills and knowledge. Amongst practicing health professionals, interactive online courses with guided critical appraisal showed significant increase in knowledge and appraisal skills. A short workshop using problem-based approaches, compared to no intervention, increased knowledge but not appraisal skills. CONCLUSIONS: EBHC teaching and learning strategies should focus on implementing multifaceted, clinically integrated approaches with assessment. Future rigorous research should evaluate minimum components for multifaceted interventions, assessment of medium to long-term outcomes, and implementation of these interventions.

BACKGROUND: Research into the methods used in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials is essential to ensure that effective methods are available and that clinical decisions made using results from trials are based on the best available evidence, which is reliable and robust. METHODS: An on-line Delphi survey of 48 UK Clinical Research Collaboration registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) was undertaken. During round one, CTU Directors were asked to identify important topics that require methodological research. During round two, their opinion about the level of importance of each topic was recorded, and during round three, they were asked to review the group's average opinion and revise their previous opinion if appropriate. Direct reminders were sent to maximise the number of responses at each round. Results are summarised using descriptive methods. RESULTS: Forty one (85%) CTU Directors responded to at least one round of the Delphi process: 25 (52%) responded in round one, 32 (67%) responded in round two, 24 (50%) responded in round three. There were only 12 (25%) who responded to all three rounds and 18 (38%) who responded to both rounds two and three. Consensus was achieved amongst CTU Directors that the top three priorities for trials methodological research were 'Research into methods to boost recruitment in trials' (considered the highest priority), 'Methods to minimise attrition' and 'Choosing appropriate outcomes to measure'. Fifty other topics were included in the list of priorities and consensus was reached that two topics, 'Radiotherapy study designs' and 'Low carbon trials', were not priorities. CONCLUSIONS: This priority setting exercise has identified the research topics felt to be most important to the key stakeholder group of Directors of UKCRC registered CTUs. The use of robust methodology to identify these priorities will help ensure that this work informs the trials methodological research agenda, with a focus on topics that will have most impact and relevance.

Objectives This systematic review aimed to describe medication non-adherence among people living with multimorbidity according to the current literature, and synthesise predictors of non-adherence in this population. Methods A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched for relevant articles published in English language between January 2009 and April 2019. Quantitative studies reporting medication non-adherence and/or predictors of non-adherence among people with two or more chronic conditions were included in the review. A meta-analysis was conducted with a subgroup of studies that used an inclusive definition of multimorbidity to recruit participants, rather than seeking people with specific conditions. Remaining studies reporting prevalence and predictors of non-adherence were narratively synthesised. Results The database search produced 10 998 records and a further 75 were identified through other sources. Following full-text screening, 178 studies were included in the review. The range of reported non-adherence differed by measurement method, at 76.5% for self-report, 69.4% for pharmacy data, and 44.1% for electronic monitoring. A meta-analysis was conducted with eight studies ( n =8949) that used an inclusive definition of multimorbidity to recruit participants. The pooled prevalence of non-adherence was 42.6% (95% CI: 34.0 - 51.3%, k =8, I 2 =97%, p <0.01). The overall range of non-adherence was 7.0%–83.5%. Frequently reported correlates of non-adherence included previous non-adherence and treatment-related beliefs. Conclusions The review identified a heterogeneous literature in terms of conditions studied, and definitions and measures of non-adherence used. Results suggest that future attempts to improve adherence among people with multimorbidity should determine for which conditions individuals require most support. The variable levels of medication non-adherence highlight the need for more attention to be paid by healthcare providers to the impact of multimorbidity on chronic disease self-management. PROSPERO registration number CRD42019133849.

AIMS: This cross-sectional study aimed to assess resilience, professional quality of life and coping mechanisms in UK doctors. It also aimed to assess the impact of demographic variables, such as sex, grade and specialty on these factors. METHODS: During October and November 2018, medical doctors in the UK were eligible to complete an online survey made up of validated psychological instruments. Royal Colleges and other medical organisations invited their membership to participate via newsletters, email invitations, websites and social media. RESULTS: 1651 doctors participated from a wide range of specialties and grades across the UK. The mean resilience score was 65.01 (SD 12.3), lower than population norms. Of those who responded, 31.5% had high burnout (BO), 26.2% had high secondary traumatic stress and 30.7% had low compassion satisfaction (CS). Doctors who responded from emergency medicine were more burned out than any other specialty group (F=2.62, p=0.001, df 14). Those who responded from general practice scored lowest for CS (F=6.43, p<0.001, df 14). 120 (8%) doctors met the criteria for all three of high BO, high STS and low CS. The most frequently reported coping mechanism was the maladaptive strategy of self-distraction. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of UK doctors who responded are burned out and suffering from STS. Those who responded from emergency medicine and general practice appear to be suffering the most. Over 100 doctors fell into the at-risk category of high BO, high STS and low CS. Future analysis of the free text responses from doctors may help to identify factors that are playing a role in the high levels of BO and STS being reported by medical staff.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin 6 (IL-6) blocking agents have been used for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Their immunosuppressive effect might be valuable in patients with COVID-19 characterised by substantial immune system dysfunction by controlling inflammation and promoting disease tolerance. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or with placebo on efficacy and safety outcomes in COVID-19. We will update this assessment regularly. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (up to 11 February 2021) and the L-OVE platform, and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify trials up to 26 February 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. The protocol was amended to reduce the number of outcomes considered. Two review authors independently collected data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence with the GRADE approach for the critical outcomes such as clinical improvement (defined as hospital discharge or improvement on the scale used by trialists to evaluate clinical progression or recovery) (day (D) 28 / ≥ D60); WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above (i.e. the proportion of participants with mechanical ventilation +/- additional organ support OR death) (D28 / ≥ D60); all-cause mortality (D28 / ≥ D60); incidence of any adverse events; and incidence of serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: = 0.0%; 8 RCTs, 2312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Sarilumab versus standard care alone or with placebo The evidence is uncertain about the effect of sarilumab on all-cause mortality at D28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.36; 2 RCTs, 880 participants; low certainty), on all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.0; 1 RCT, 420 participants; low certainty), and serious adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.77; 2 RCTs, 880 participants; low certainty). It is unlikely that sarilumab results in an important increase of adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.25; 1 RCT, 420 participants; moderate certainty). However, an increase cannot be excluded No data were available for other critical outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: On average, tocilizumab reduces all-cause mortality at D28 compared to standard care alone or placebo and probably results in slightly fewer serious adverse events than standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, tocilizumab probably results in little or no increase in the outcome clinical improvement (defined as hospital discharge or improvement measured by trialist-defined scales) at D28. The impact of tocilizumab on other outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. With the data available, we were not able to explore heterogeneity. Individual patient data meta-analyses are needed to be able to identify which patients are more likely to benefit from this treatment. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab is uncertain and evidence for other anti-IL6 agents is unavailable. Thirty-nine RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents with no results are currently registered, of which nine are completed and seven trials were terminated with no results available. The findings of this review will be updated as new data are made available on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).

BACKGROUND: Despite the problem of inadequate recruitment to randomised trials, there is little evidence to guide researchers on decisions about how people are effectively recruited to take part in trials. The PRioRiTy study aimed to identify and prioritise important unanswered trial recruitment questions for research. The PRioRiTy study - Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) included members of the public approached to take part in a randomised trial or who have represented participants on randomised trial steering committees, health professionals and research staff with experience of recruiting to randomised trials, people who have designed, conducted, analysed or reported on randomised trials and people with experience of randomised trials methodology. METHODS: This partnership was aided by the James Lind Alliance and involved eight stages: (i) identifying a unique, relevant prioritisation area within trial methodology; (ii) establishing a steering group (iii) identifying and engaging with partners and stakeholders; (iv) formulating an initial list of uncertainties; (v) collating the uncertainties into research questions; (vi) confirming that the questions for research are a current recruitment challenge; (vii) shortlisting questions and (viii) final prioritisation through a face-to-face workshop. RESULTS: A total of 790 survey respondents yielded 1693 open-text answers to 6 questions, from which 1880 potential questions for research were identified. After merging duplicates, the number of questions was reduced to 496. Questions were combined further, and those that were submitted by fewer than 15 people and/or fewer than 6 of the 7 stakeholder groups were excluded from the next round of prioritisation resulting in 31 unique questions for research. All 31 questions were confirmed as being unanswered after checking relevant, up-to-date research evidence. The 10 highest priority questions were ranked at a face-to-face workshop. The number 1 ranked question was "How can randomised trials become part of routine care and best utilise current clinical care pathways?" The top 10 research questions can be viewed at www.priorityresearch.ie . CONCLUSION: The prioritised questions call for a collective focus on normalising trials as part of clinical care, enhancing communication, addressing barriers, enablers and motivators around participation and exploring greater public involvement in the research process.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a chronic, progressive and ultimately fatal neurodegenerative disease. Advanced dementia is characterised by profound cognitive impairment, inability to communicate verbally and complete functional dependence. Usual care of people with advanced dementia is not underpinned universally by a palliative approach. Palliative care has focused traditionally on care of people with cancer but for more than a decade, there have been increased calls worldwide to extend palliative care services to include all people with life-limiting illnesses in need of specialist care, including people with dementia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of palliative care interventions in advanced dementia and to report on the range of outcome measures used. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register on 4 February 2016. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of several major healthcare databases, trial registries and grey literature sources. We ran additional searches across MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), LILACS (BIREME), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization ICTRP trial portal to ensure that the searches were as comprehensive and as up-to-date as possible. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised (RCT) and non-randomised controlled trials (nRCT), controlled before-and-after studies (CBA) and interrupted time series studies evaluating the impact of palliative care interventions for adults with dementia of any type, staged as advanced dementia by a recognised and validated tool. Participants could be people with advanced dementia, their family members, clinicians or paid care staff. We included clinical interventions and non-clinical interventions. Comparators were usual care or another palliative care intervention. We did not exclude studies on the basis of outcomes measured and recorded all outcomes measured in included studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed for inclusion all the potential studies we identified as a result of the search strategy. We resolved any disagreement through discussion or, when required, consulted with the rest of the review team. We independently extracted data and conducted assessment of methodological quality, using standard Cochrane methods. MAIN RESULTS: We identified two studies of palliative care interventions for people with advanced dementia. We did not pool data due to the heterogeneity between the two trials in terms of the interventions and the settings. The two studies measured 31 different outcomes, yet they did not measure the same outcome. There are six ongoing studies that we expect to include in future versions of this review.Both studies were at high risk of bias, in part because blinding was not possible. This and small sample sizes meant that the overall certainty of all the evidence was very low.One individually randomised RCT (99 participants) evaluated the effect of a palliative care team for people with advanced dementia hospitalised for an acute illness. While this trial reported that a palliative care plan was more likely to be developed for participants in the intervention group (risk ratio (RR) 5.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.37 to 25.02), the plan was only adopted for two participants, both in the intervention group, while in hospital. The palliative care plan was more likely to be available on discharge in the intervention group (RR 4.50, 95% CI 1.03 to 19.75). We found no evidence that the intervention affected mortality in hospital (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.13), decisions to forgo cardiopulmonary resuscitation in hospital or the clinical care provided during hospital admission, but for the latter, event rates were low and the results were associated with a lot of uncertainty.One cluster RCT (256 participants, each enrolled with a family carer) evaluated the effect of a decision aid on end-of-life feeding options on surrogate decision-makers of nursing home residents with advanced dementia. Data for 90 participants (35% of the original study) met the definition of advanced dementia for this review and were re-analysed for the purposes of the review. In this subset, intervention surrogates had lower scores for decisional conflict measured on the Decisional Conflict Scale (mean difference -0.30, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.01, reduction of 0.3 to 0.4 units considered meaningful) and were more likely than participants in the control group to discuss feeding options with a clinician (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.64), but imprecision meant that there was significant uncertainty about both results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Very little high quality work has been completed exploring palliative care interventions in advanced dementia. There were only two included studies in this review, with variation in the interventions and in the settings that made it impossible to conduct a meta-analysis of data for any outcome. Thus, we conclude that there is insufficient evidence to assess the effect of palliative care interventions in advanced dementia. The fact that there are six ongoing studies at the time of this review indicates an increased interest in this area by researchers, which is welcome and needed.

OBJECTIVE: To develop core outcome sets (COS) for studies evaluating interventions for (1) prevention and (2) treatment of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), and recommendations on how to report the COS. DESIGN: A two-round Delphi survey and face-to-face meeting. POPULATION: Healthcare professionals and women's representatives. METHODS: Outcomes were identified from systematic reviews of PPH studies and stakeholder consultation. Participants scored each outcome in the Delphi on a Likert scale between 1 (not important) and 9 (critically important). Results were discussed at the face-to-face meeting to agree the final COS. Consensus at the meeting was defined as ≥ 70% of participants scoring the outcome as critically important (7-9). Lectures, discussion and voting were used to agree how to report COS outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes from systematic reviews and consultations. RESULTS: Both Delphi rounds were completed by 152/205 (74%) participants for prevention and 143/197 (73%) for treatment. For prevention of PPH, nine core outcomes were selected: blood loss, shock, maternal death, use of additional uterotonics, blood transfusion, transfer for higher level of care, women's sense of wellbeing, acceptability and satisfaction with the intervention, breastfeeding, and adverse effects. For treatment of PPH, 12 core outcomes were selected: blood loss, shock, coagulopathy, hysterectomy, organ dysfunction, maternal death, blood transfusion, use of additional haemostatic intervention, transfer for higher level of care, women's sense of wellbeing, acceptability and satisfaction with the intervention, breastfeeding, and adverse effects. Recommendations were developed on how to report these outcomes where possible. CONCLUSIONS: These COS will help standardise outcome reporting in PPH trials. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Core outcome sets for PPH: nine core outcomes for PPH prevention and 12 core outcomes for PPH treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To review the barriers to the uptake of research evidence from systematic reviews by decision makers. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched 19 databases covering the full range of publication years, utilised three search engines and also personally contacted investigators. Reference lists of primary studies and related reviews were also consulted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they reported on the views and perceptions of decision makers on the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews, meta-analyses and the databases associated with them. All study designs, settings and decision makers were included. One investigator screened titles to identify candidate articles then two reviewers independently assessed the quality and the relevance of retrieved reports. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers described the methods of included studies and extracted data that were summarised in tables and then analysed. Using a pre-established taxonomy, the barriers were organised into a framework according to their effect on knowledge, attitudes or behaviour. RESULTS: Of 1726 articles initially identified, we selected 27 unique published studies describing at least one barrier to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews. These studies included a total of 25 surveys and 2 qualitative studies. Overall, the majority of participants (n=10 218) were physicians (64%). The most commonly investigated barriers were lack of use (14/25), lack of awareness (12/25), lack of access (11/25), lack of familiarity (7/25), lack of usefulness (7/25), lack of motivation (4/25) and external barriers (5/25). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review reveals that strategies to improve the uptake of evidence from reviews and meta-analyses will need to overcome a wide variety of obstacles. Our review describes the reasons why knowledge users, especially physicians, do not call on systematic reviews. This study can inform future approaches to enhancing systematic review uptake and also suggests potential avenues for future investigation.

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.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To identify the most comprehensive approach to developing complex interventions for nursing research and practice. BACKGROUND: The majority of research in nursing is descriptive and exploratory in nature. There is an increasing professional and political demand for nurses to develop and provide evidence to support their practices. Nurses need to explore current practice and develop and test interventions to provide the evidence required for safe practice. DESIGN: A literature review using a systematic approach. METHODS: The review was carried out using four databases: CINAHL, PubMed, PsycINFO and BNI (2000-2011), and the search was limited to 'brief interventions' and complex intervention development (January 2000-September 2011). Included papers reported on guidelines for intervention development or 'how' an intervention was developed. RESULTS: Six papers reported on guidelines for developing interventions. There are many similarities between the guidelines with a similar pattern of guideline development in Europe and the USA. The only guideline reported to have been used in the development of interventions is the Medical Research Council framework (MRC) (A Framework for Developing and Evaluation of RCTs for Complex Interventions to Improve Health, 2000), with 9 of 14 papers that describe the development of an intervention reporting the use of this guideline. The other five papers did not mention the use of any guideline or framework. CONCLUSIONS: The MRC (A Framework for Developing and Evaluation of RCTs for Complex Interventions to Improve Health, 2000) framework appears to be the most widely used guideline reported for developing complex interventions. Although the updated MRC (Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions, 2008) framework adds considerably to the original MRC (A Framework for Developing and Evaluation of RCTs for Complex Interventions to Improve Health, 2000) framework, other guidelines contribute additional guidance which can inform the development of nursing interventions. These additional guidelines are presented in a model for developing complex interventions for nursing. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The model will help nurses planning to develop nursing interventions as it provides additional and nursing-specific guidance to the MRC (Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions, 2008) framework for the development of complex interventions for nursing practice.

BACKGROUND: As COVID-19 continued to impact society and health, maternity care, as with many other healthcare sectors across the globe, experienced tumultuous changes. These changes have the potential to considerably impact on the experience of maternity care. To gain insight and understanding of the experience of maternity care during COVID-19, from the perspectives of women and maternity care providers, we undertook a qualitative evidence synthesis (QES). METHODS: The population of interest for the QES were pregnant and postpartum women, and maternity care providers, who provided qualitative data on their experiences of maternity care during COVID-19. The electronic databases of MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane COVID study register were systematically searched from 01 Jan 2020 to 13 June 2021. The methodological quality of the included studies was appraised using a modified version of the quality assessment tool, based on 12-criteria, designed by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information coordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre). Data were extracted by two reviewers independently and synthesised using the Thomas and Harden framework. Confidence in the findings was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual). RESULTS: Fifty records relating to 48 studies, involving 9,348 women and 2,538 maternity care providers, were included in the QES. The methodological quality of the studies varied from four studies meeting all 12 quality criteria to two studies meeting one quality criterion only. The synthesis revealed eight prominent themes. Five of these reflected women's experiences: 1) Altered maternity care (women), 2) COVID-related restrictions, 3) Infection prevention and risk, 4) 'the lived reality' - navigating support systems, and 5) Interactions with maternity services. Three themes reflected maternity care providers' experiences: 6) Altered maternity care (providers), 7) Professional and personal impact, and 8) Broader structural impact. Confidence in the findings was high or moderate. CONCLUSION: Although some positive experiences were identified, overall, this QES reveals that maternity care during COVID-19 was negatively experienced by both women and maternity care providers. The pandemic and associated changes evoked an array of emotive states for both populations, many of which have the potential to impact on future health and wellbeing. Resource and care planning to mitigate medium- and longer-term adverse sequelae are required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021232684.

International audience