Background In laboratory animals, exposure to most general anaesthetics leads to neurotoxicity manifested by neuronal cell death and abnormal behaviour and cognition. Some large human cohort studies have shown an association between general anaesthesia at a young age and subsequent neurodevelopmental deficits, but these studies are prone to bias. Others have found no evidence for an association. We aimed to establish whether general anaesthesia in early infancy affects neurodevelopmental outcomes. Methods In this international, assessor-masked, equivalence, randomised, controlled trial conducted at 28 hospitals in Australia, Italy, the USA, the UK, Canada, the Netherlands, and New Zealand, we recruited infants of less than 60 weeks' postmenstrual age who were born at more than 26 weeks' gestation and were undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy, without previous exposure to general anaesthesia or risk factors for neurological injury. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by use of a web-based randomisation service to receive either awake-regional anaesthetic or sevoflurane-based general anaesthetic. Anaesthetists were aware of group allocation, but individuals administering the neurodevelopmental assessments were not. Parents were informed of their infants group allocation upon request, but were told to mask this information from assessors. The primary outcome measure was full-scale intelligence quotient (FSIQ) on the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, third edition (WPPSI-III), at 5 years of age. The primary analysis was done on a per-protocol basis, adjusted for gestational age at birth and country, with multiple imputation used to account for missing data. An intention-totreat analysis was also done. A difference in means of 5 points was predefined as the clinical equivalence margin. This completed trial is registered with ANZCTR, number ACTRN12606000441516, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00756600. Findings Between Feb 9, 2007, and Jan 31, 2013, 4023 infants were screened and 722 were randomly allocated: 363 (50%) to the awake-regional anaesthesia group and 359 (50%) to the general anaesthesia group. There were 74 protocol violations in the awake-regional anaesthesia group and two in the general anaesthesia group. Primary outcome data for the per-protocol analysis were obtained from 205 children in the awake-regional anaesthesia group and 242 in the general anaesthesia group. The median duration of general anaesthesia was 54 min (IQR 41-70). The mean FSIQ score was 99•08 (SD 18•35) in the awake-regional anaesthesia group and 98•97 (19•66) in the general anaesthesia group, with a difference in means (awake-regional anaesthesia minus general anaesthesia) of 0•23 (95% CI-2•59 to 3•06), providing strong evidence of equivalence. The results of the intention-to-treat analysis were similar to those of the per-protocol analysis. Interpretation Slightly less than 1 h of general anaesthesia in early infancy does not alter neurodevelopmental outcome at age 5 years compared with awake-regional anaesthesia ...

A large number of postoperative pulmonary outcome measures have been used, but most are poorly defined. Our four recommended outcome measures include a new definition of postoperative pulmonary complications, incorporating an assessment of severity. These definitions will meet the needs of most clinical effectiveness trials of treatments to improve postoperative pulmonary outcomes.

An important aim of clinical prediction models is to positively impact clinical decision making and subsequent patient outcomes. The impact on clinical decision making and patient outcome can be quantified in prospective comparative-ideally cluster-randomized-studies, known as 'impact studies'. However, such impact studies often require a lot of time and resources, especially when they are (cluster-)randomized studies. Before envisioning such large-scale randomized impact study, it is important to ensure a reasonable chance that the use of the prediction model by the targeted healthcare professionals and patients will indeed have a positive effect on both decision making and subsequent outcomes. We recently performed two differently designed, prospective impact studies on a clinical prediction model to be used in surgical patients. Both studies taught us new valuable lessons on several aspects of prediction model impact studies, and which considerations may guide researchers in their decision to conduct a prospective comparative impact study. We provide considerations on how to prepare a prediction model for implementation in practice, how to present the model predictions, and how to choose the proper design for a prediction model impact study.

As standardised outcomes will support benchmarking and pooling (meta-analysis) of trials, one or more of these recommended endpoints should be considered for inclusion in clinical trials assessing patient comfort and pain after surgery.