ObjectivesDesigning studies with an internal pilot phase may optimise the use of pilot work to inform more efficient randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Careful selection of preagreed decision or ‘progression’ criteria at the juncture between the internal pilot and main trial phases provides a valuable opportunity to evaluate the likely success of the main trial and optimise its design or, if necessary, to make the decision not to proceed with the main trial. Guidance on the appropriate selection and application of progression criteria is, however, lacking. This paper outlines the key issues to consider in the optimal development and review of operational progression criteria for RCTs with an internal pilot phase.DesignA structured literature review and exploration of stakeholders' opinions at a Medical Research Council (MRC) Hubs for Trials Methodology Research workshop. Key stakeholders included triallists, methodologists, statisticians and funders.ResultsThere is considerable variation in the use of progression criteria for RCTs with an internal pilot phase, although 3 common issues predominate: trial recruitment, protocol adherence and outcome data. Detailed and systematic reporting around the decision-making process for stopping, amending or proceeding to a main trial is uncommon, which may hamper understanding in the research community about the appropriate and optimal use of RCTs with an internal pilot phase. 10 top tips for the development, use and reporting of progression criteria for internal pilot studies are presented.ConclusionsSystematic and transparent reporting of the design, results and evaluation of internal pilot trials in the literature should be encouraged in order to facilitate understanding in the research community and to inform future trials.
Introduction
Hearing aid usage has been linked to improvements in cognition, communication, and socialization, but the extent to which it can affect the incidence and progression of dementia is unknown. Such research is vital given the high prevalence of dementia and hearing impairment in older adults, and the fact that both conditions often coexist. In this study, we examined for the first time the effect of the use of hearing aids on the conversion from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to dementia and progression of dementia.
Methods
We used a large referral‐based cohort of 2114 hearing‐impaired patients obtained from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center. Survival analyses using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model and weighted Cox regression model with censored data were performed to assess the effect of hearing aid use on the risk of conversion from MCI to dementia and risk of death in hearing‐impaired participants. Disease progression was assessed with Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR‐SB) scores. Three types of sensitivity analyses were performed to validate the robustness of the results.
Results
MCI participants that used hearing aids were at significantly lower risk of developing all‐cause dementia compared to those not using hearing aids (hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 0.89; false discovery rate [FDR] P = 0.004). The mean annual rate of change (standard deviation) in CDR‐SB scores for hearing aid users with MCI was 1.3 (1.45) points and significantly lower than for individuals not wearing hearing aids with a 1.7 (1.95) point increase in CDR‐SB per year (P = 0.02). No association between hearing aid use and risk of death was observed. Our findings were robust subject to sensitivity analyses.
Discussion
Among hearing‐impaired adults, hearing aid use was independently associated with reduced dementia risk. The causality between hearing aid use and incident dementia should be further tested.
IntroductionTeenage pregnancy remains a worldwide health concern which is an outcome of, and contributor to, health inequalities. The need for gender-aware interventions with a focus on males in addressing teenage pregnancy has been highlighted as a global health need by WHO and identified in systematic reviews of (relationship and sexuality education (RSE)). This study aims to test the effectiveness of an interactive film-based RSE intervention, which draws explicit attention to the role of males in preventing an unintended pregnancy by reducing unprotected heterosexual teenage sex among males and females under age 16 years.Methods and analysisA phase III cluster randomised trial with embedded process and economic evaluations. If I Were Jack encompasses a culturally sensitive interactive film, classroom materials, a teacher-trainer session and parent animations and will be delivered to replace some of the usual RSE for the target age group in schools in the intervention group. Schools in the control group will not receive the intervention and will continue with usual RSE. Participants will not be blinded to allocation. Schools are the unit of randomisation stratified per country and socioeconomic status. We aim to recruit 66 UK schools (24 in Northern Ireland; 14 in each of England, Scotland and Wales), including approximately 7900 pupils. A questionnaire will be administered at baseline and at 12–14 months postintervention. The primary outcome is reported unprotected sex, a surrogate measure associated with unintended teenage pregnancy. Secondary outcomes include knowledge, attitudes, skills and intentions relating to avoiding teenage pregnancy in addition to frequency of engagement in sexual intercourse, contraception use and diagnosis of sexually transmitted infections.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from Queen’s University Belfast. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated to stakeholders. Funding is from the National Institute for Health Research.Trial registration numberISRCTN99459996
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.