2 - Schools incorporating the Life Sciences and Medicine
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://hdl.handle.net/2164/330
Browse
6 results
Search Results
Item Microwave endometrial ablation versus thermal balloon endometrial ablation (MEATBall) : 5-year follow up of a randomised controlled trial(2014-05) Sambrook, A M; Elders, A; Cooper, K G; University of Aberdeen.Other Applied Health SciencesItem Maintained physical activity and physiotherapy in the management of distal upper limb pain : a protocol for a randomised controlled trial (the arm pain trial)(2014-03-10) Jones, Gareth T; Mertens, Kathrin; Macfarlane, Gary J; Palmer, Keith T; Coggon, David; Walker-Bone, Karen; Burton, Kim; Heine, Peter J; McCabe, Candy; McNamee, Paul; McConnachie, Alex; University of Aberdeen.Other Applied Health Sciences; University of Aberdeen.Epidemiology Group; University of Aberdeen.Institute of Applied Health Sciences; University of Aberdeen.Aberdeen Centre for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Health (ACAMH); University of Aberdeen.Health Economics Research UnitItem Clinical and cost-effectiveness of internal limiting membrane peeling for patients with idiopathic full thickness macular hole. Protocol for a Randomised Controlled Trial : FILMS (Full-thickness macular hole and Internal Limiting Membrane peeling Study)(BMC, 2008-11-03) Lois, Noemi; Burr, Jennifer Margaret; Norrie, John David; Vale, Luke David; Cook, Jonathan Alistair; McDonald, Alison Mary; FILMS Group; University of Aberdeen, School of Medicine & Dentistry, Division of Applied Health SciencesBackground: A full-thickness macular hole (FTMH) is a common retinal condition associated with impaired vision. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that surgery, by means of pars plana vitrectomy and post-operative intraocular tamponade with gas, is effective for stage 2, 3 and 4 FTMH. Internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling has been introduced as an additional surgical manoeuvre to increase the success of the surgery; i.e. increase rates of hole closure and visual improvement. However, little robust evidence exists supporting the superiority of ILM peeling compared with no-peeling techniques. The purpose of FILMS (Fullthickness macular hole and Internal Limiting Membrane peeling Study) is to determine whether ILM peeling improves the visual function, the anatomical closure of FTMH, and the quality of life of patients affected by this disorder, and the cost-effectiveness of the surgery. Methods/Design: Patients with stage 2–3 idiopathic FTMH of less or equal than 18 months duration (based on symptoms reported by the participant) and with a visual acuity ≤ 20/40 in the study eye will be enrolled in this FILMS from eight sites across the UK and Ireland. Participants will be randomised to receive combined cataract surgery (phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation) and pars plana vitrectomy with postoperative intraocular tamponade with gas, with or without ILM peeling. The primary outcome is distance visual acuity at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include distance visual acuity at 3 and 24 months, near visual acuity at 3, 6, and 24 months, contrast sensitivity at 6 months, reading speed at 6 months, anatomical closure of the macular hole at each time point (1, 3, 6, and 24 months), health related quality of life (HRQOL) at six months, costs to the health service and the participant, incremental costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) and adverse events. Discussion: FILMS will provide high quality evidence on the role of ILM peeling in FTMH surgery. Trial registration: This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN number 33175422 and Clinical Trials.gov identifier NCT00286507.Item The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of minimal access surgery amongst people with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease – a UK collaborative study(National Institute for Health Research, 2008-09) Grant, Adrian Maxwell; Wileman, Samantha Mary; Ramsay, Craig R; Bojke, Laura; Sculpher, Mark J.; Kilonzo, Mary Mueni; Vale, Luke David; Francis, Jillian Joy; Mowat, Ashley G.; Krukowski, Zygmunt H.; Campbell, Marion Kay; Epstein, David; Macran, Sue; Heading, Robert; Thursz, Mark; Russell, Ian; REFLUX Trial Group; University of Aberdeen, School of Medicine & Dentistry, Division of Applied Health Sciences*Corresponding author randomised arm of the trial (178 allocated to surgical management,179 allocated to continued, but optimised,medical management) and 453 recruited to the parallel non-randomised preference arm (261 chose surgical management, 192 chose to continue with best medical management). The type of fundoplication was left to the discretion of the surgeon. Main outcome measures: Participants completed a baseline reflux questionnaire, developed specifically for this study, containing a disease-specific outcome measure, the Short Form with 36 Items (SF-36), the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) and the Beliefs about Medicines and Surgery questionnaires (BMQ/BSQ).Postal questionnaires were completed at participant specific time intervals after joining the trial (equivalent to approximately 3 and 12 months after surgery).Intraoperative data were recorded by the surgeons and all other in-hospital data were collected by the research nurse. At the end of the study period, participants completed a discrete choice experiment questionnaire. Results: The randomised groups were well balanced at entry. Participants had been taking GORD medication for a median of 32 months; the mean age of participants was 46 years and 66% were men. Of 178 randomised to surgery, 111 (62%) actually had fundoplication.There was a mixture of clinical and personal reasons why some patients did not have surgery, sometimes Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, costeffectiveness and safety of a policy of relatively early laparoscopic surgery compared with continued medical management amongst people with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) judged suitable for both policies. Design: Relative clinical effectiveness was assessed by a randomised trial (with parallel non-randomised preference groups) comparing a laparoscopic surgerybased policy with a continued medical management policy. The economic evaluation compared the costeffectiveness of the two management policies in order to identify the most efficient provision of future care and describe the resource impact that various policies for fundoplication would have on the NHS.Setting: A total of 21 hospitals throughout the UK with a local partnership between surgeon(s) and gastroenterologist(s) who shared the secondary care of patients with GORD.Participants: The 810 participants, who were identified retrospectively or prospectively via their participating clinicians, had both documented evidence of GORD (endoscopy and/or manometry/24-hour pH monitoring) and symptoms for longer than 12 months. In addition,the recruiting clinician(s) was clinically uncertain about which management policy was best.Intervention: Of the 810 eligible patients who consented to participate, 357 were recruited to the related to long waiting times. A total or partial wrap procedure was performed depending on surgeon preference. Complications were uncommon and there were no deaths associated with surgery. By the equivalent of 12 months after surgery, 38% in the randomised surgical group (14% amongst those who had surgery) were taking reflux medication compared with 90% in the randomised medical group. There were substantial differences (one-third to one-half standard deviation) favouring the randomised surgical group across the health status measures, the size depending on assumptions about the proportion that actually had fundoplication. These differences were the same or somewhat smaller than differences observed at 3 months. The lower the reflux score, the worse the symptoms at trial entry and the larger the benefit observed after surgery. The preference surgical group had the lowest reflux scores at baseline. These scores improved substantially after surgery, and by 12 months they were better than those in the preference medical group. The BMQ/BSQ and discrete choice experiment did distinguish the preference groups from each other and from the randomised groups. The latter indicated that the risk of serious complications was the most important single attribute of a treatment option. A within trial cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that the surgery policy was more costly (mean £2049) but also more effective [+0.088 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)]. The estimated incremental cost per QALY was £19,000–£23,000, with a probability between 46% (when 62% received surgery) and 19% (when all received surgery) of cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY. Modelling plausible longer-term scenarios (such as lifetime benefit after surgery) indicated a greater likelihood (74%) of costeffectiveness at a threshold of £20,000, but applying a range of alternative scenarios indicated wide uncertainty.The expected value of perfect information was greatest for longer-term quality of life and proportions of surgical patients requiring medication.Conclusions: Amongst patients requiring long-term medication to control symptoms of GORD, surgical management significantly increases general and refluxspecific health-related quality of life measures, at least up to 12 months after surgery. Complications of surgery were rare. A surgical policy is, however, more costly than continued medical management. At a threshold of £20,000 per QALY it may well be cost-effective, especially when putative longer-term benefits are taken into account, but this is uncertain.The more troublesome the symptoms, the greater the potential benefit from surgery. Uncertainty about cost-effectiveness would be greatly reduced by more reliable information about relative longer-term costs and benefits of surgical and medical policies. This could be through extended follow-up of the reflux trial cohorts or of other cohorts of fundoplication patients.Item IMPLEmenting a clinical practice guideline for acute low back pain evidence-based manageMENT in general practice (IMPLEMENT) : cluster randomised controlled trial study protocol(BioMed Central, 2008-02-22) McKenzie, Joanne E.; French, Simon D.; O'Connor, Denise A.; Grimshaw, Jeremy M.; Mortimer, Duncan; Michie, Susan; Francis, Jillian Joy; Spike, Neil; Schattner, Peter; Kent, Peter M.; Buchbinder, Rachelle; Green, Sally E.Background: Evidence generated from reliable research is not frequently implemented into clinical practice. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are a potential vehicle to achieve this. A recent systematic review of implementation strategies of guideline dissemination concluded that there was a lack of evidence regarding effective strategies to promote the uptake of guidelines. Recommendations from this review, and other studies, have suggested the use of interventions that are theoretically based because these may be more effective than those that are not. An evidencebased clinical practice guideline for the management of acute low back pain was recently developed in Australia. This provides an opportunity to develop and test a theory-based implementation intervention for a condition which is common, has a high burden, and for which there is an evidence-practice gap in the primary care setting. Aim: This study aims to test the effectiveness of a theory-based intervention for implementing a clinical practice guideline for acute low back pain in general practice in Victoria, Australia. Specifically, our primary objectives are to establish if the intervention is effective in reducing the percentage of patients who are referred for a plain x-ray, and improving mean level of disability for patients three months post-consultation. Methods/Design: This study protocol describes the details of a cluster randomised controlled trial. Ninety-two general practices (clusters), which include at least one consenting general practitioner, will be randomised to an intervention or control arm using restricted randomisation. Patients aged 18 years or older who visit a participating practitioner for acute non-specific low back pain of less than three months duration will be eligible for inclusion. An average of twenty-five patients per general practice will be recruited, providing a total of 2,300 patient participants. General practitioners in the control arm will receive access to the guideline using the existing dissemination strategy. Practitioners in the intervention arm will be invited to participate in facilitated face-to-face workshops that have been underpinned by behavioural theory. Investigators (not involved in the delivery of the intervention), patients, outcome assessors and the study statistician will be blinded to group allocation. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN012606000098538 (date registered 14/03/2006).Item Randomised trial of glutamine and selenium supplemented parenteral nutrition for critically ill patients(BioMed Central, 2007-09-20) Andrews, Peter J.D.; Avenell, Alison; Noble, David W.; Campbell, Marion Kay; Battison, Claire G.; Croal, Bernard L.; Simpson, William G.; Norrie, John David; Vale, Luke David; Cook, Jonathan Alistair; De Verteuil, Robyn; Milne, Anne Catherine; Trials Management Group; University of Aberdeen, School of Medicine & Dentistry, Division of Applied Health SciencesBackground: Mortality rates in the Intensive Care Unit and subsequent hospital mortality rates in the UK remain high. Infections in Intensive Care are associated with a 2–3 times increased risk of death. It is thought that under conditions of severe metabolic stress glutamine becomes "conditionally essential". Selenium is an essential trace element that has antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Approximately 23% of patients in Intensive Care require parenteral nutrition and glutamine and selenium are either absent or present in low amounts. Both glutamine and selenium have the potential to influence the immune system through independent biochemical pathways. Systematic reviews suggest that supplementing parenteral nutrition in critical illness with glutamine or selenium may reduce infections and mortality. Pilot data has shown that more than 50% of participants developed infections, typically resistant organisms. We are powered to show definitively whether supplementation of PN with either glutamine or selenium is effective at reducing new infections in critically ill patients. Methods/design: 2 × 2 factorial, pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. The trial has an enrolment target of 500 patients. Inclusion criteria include: expected to be in critical care for at least 48 hours, aged 16 years or over, patients who require parenteral nutrition and are expected to have at least half their daily nutritional requirements given by that route. Allocation is to one of four iso-caloric, iso-nitrogenous groups: glutamine, selenium, both glutamine & selenium or no additional glutamine or selenium. Trial supplementation is given for up to seven days on the Intensive Care Unit and subsequent wards if practicable. The primary outcomes are episodes of infection in the 14 days after starting trial nutrition and mortality. Secondary outcomes include antibiotic usage, length of hospital stay, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Discussion: To date more than 285 patients have been recruited to the trial from 10 sites in Scotland. Recruitment is due to finish in August 2008 with a further six months follow up. We expect to report the results of the trial in summer 2009. Trial registration: This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number system. ISRCTN87144826