Total word count including appendix: 93,499 ii ABSTRACT BackgroundThere is good evidence that therapist delivered interventions have modest beneficial effects for people with low back pain (LBP). Identification of subgroups of people with LBP who may benefit from these different treatment approaches is an important research priority. Aim and objectivesOverall aim was to improve the clinical and cost-effectiveness of LBP treatment by providing patients, their clinical advisors, and health service purchasers with better information about which participants are most likely to benefit from which treatment To achieve these objectives required substantial methodological work including the development and evaluation of some novel statistical approaches. This programme of work was not designed to analyse main effect of interventions and no such interpretations should be made.iii MethodsFirstly, we reviewed the literature on treatment moderators and subgroups. We initially invited investigators of trials of therapist-delivered interventions for LBP with >179 participants to share their data with us; some further smaller trials offered to us were also included. Using these trials we developed a repository of individual participant data of therapist delivered interventions for LBP. Using this dataset we sought to identify which participant characteristics, if any, predict response to different treatments (moderators) for clinical and cost effectiveness outcomes.We did an ANCOVA to identify potential moderators to apply in our main analyses.Subsequently we developed and applied three methods of subgroup identification; recursive partitioning (interaction trees and subgroup identification based on a differential effect search), adaptive risk group refinement, and an individual participant data indirect network meta-analysis to identify sub-groups defined by multiple parameters. ResultsWe included data from 19 randomised controlled trials with 9,328 participants (mean age 49 years, 57% females). Our prespecified analyses using recursive partitioning and adaptive risk group refinement performed well and allowed us to identify some subgroups. The differences in the effect size in the different subgroups were typically small, and unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Increasing baseline severity on the outcome of interest was the strongest driver of sub-group identification that we identified. Additionally we explored the application of Bayesian indirect network metaanalysis. This method produced varying probabilities that a particular treatment choice would be most likely to be effective for a specific patient profile. ConclusionThese data lack clinical or cost-effectiveness justification for the use of baseline characteristics in the development of subgroups for back pain. The methodological developments from this work have the potential to be applied in other clinical areas.iv The pooled repository database will serve as a valuable resource to the LBP research community. FundingFunding from the NIHR Programme Grants for Ap...

BackgroundLow back pain is a common and disabling condition leading to large health service and societal costs. Although there are several treatment options for back pain little is known about how to improve patient choice in treatment selection. The purpose of this study was to pilot a decision support package to help people choose between low back pain treatments.MethodsThis was a single-centred pilot cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in a community physiotherapy service. We included adults with non-specific low back pain referred for physiotherapy. Intervention participants were sent an information booklet prior to their first consultation. Intervention physiotherapists were trained to enhance their skills in shared informed decision making. Those in the control arm received care as usual. The primary outcome was satisfaction with the treatment received at four months using a five-point Likert Scale dichotomised into “satisfaction” (very satisfied or somewhat satisfied) and “non-satisfaction” (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied).ResultsWe recruited 148 participants. In the control arm 67% of participants were satisfied with their treatment and in the intervention arm 53%. The adjusted relative risk of being satisfied was 1.28 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 2.09). For most secondary outcomes the trend was towards worse outcomes in the intervention group. For one measure; the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, this difference was clinically important (2.27, 95% confidence interval 0.08 to 4.47). Mean healthcare costs were slightly lower (£38 saving per patient) within the intervention arm but health outcomes were also less favourable (0.02 fewer QALYs); the estimated probability that the intervention would be cost-effective at an incremental threshold of £20,000 per QALY was 16%.ConclusionWe did not find that this decision support package improved satisfaction with treatment; it may have had a substantial negative effect on clinical outcome, and is very unlikely to prove cost-effective. That a decision support package might have a clinically important detrimental effect is of concern. To our knowledge this has not been observed previously. Decision support packages should be formally tested for clinical and cost-effectiveness, and safety before implementation.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN46035546 registered on 11/02/10.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-282) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IMPORTANCEThe use of perioperative, prophylactic, intravenous antibiotics is standard practice to reduce the risk of surgical site infection after oncologic resection and complex endoprosthetic reconstruction for lower extremity bone tumors. However, evidence guiding the duration of prophylactic treatment remains limited.OBJECTIVE To assess the effect of a 5-day regimen of postoperative, prophylactic, intravenous antibiotics compared with a 1-day regimen on the rate of surgical site infections within 1 year after surgery.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This randomized clinical superiority trial was performed at 48 clinical sites in 12 countries from January 1, 2013, to October 29, 2019. The trial included patients with a primary bone tumor or a soft tissue sarcoma that had invaded the femur or tibia or oligometastatic bone disease of the femur or tibia with expected survival of at least 1 year who required surgical management by excision and endoprosthetic reconstruction. A total of 611 patients were enrolled, and 7 were excluded for ineligibility.INTERVENTIONS A 1-or 5-day regimen of postoperative prophylactic intravenous cephalosporin (cefazolin or cefuroxime) that began within 8 hours after skin closure and was administered every 8 hours thereafter. Those randomized to the 1-day regimen received identical saline doses every 8 hours for the remaining 4 days; patients, care providers, and outcomes assessors were blinded to treatment regimen. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome in this superiority trial was a surgical site infection (superficial incisional, deep incisional, or organ space) classified according to the criteria established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention within 1 year after surgery. Secondary outcomes included antibiotic-related complications, unplanned additional operations, oncologic and functional outcomes, and mortality. RESULTSOf the 604 patients included in the final analysis (mean [SD] age, 41.2 [21.9] years; 361 [59.8%] male; 114 [18.9%] Asian, 43 [7.1%] Black, 34 [5.6%] Hispanic, 15 [2.5%] Indigenous, 384 [63.8%] White, and 12 [2.0%] other), 293 were randomized to a 5-day regimen and 311 to a 1-day regimen. A surgical site infection occurred in 44 patients (15.0%) allocated to the 5-day regimen and in 52 patients (16.7%) allocated to the 1-day regimen (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.62-1.40; P = .73). Antibiotic-related complications occurred in 15 patients (5.1%) in the 5-day regimen and in 5 patients (1.6%) allocated to the 1-day regimen (hazard ratio, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.17-8.98; P = .02). Other secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between treatment groups.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This randomized clinical trial did not confirm the superiority of a 5-day regimen of postoperative intravenous antibiotics over a 1-day regimen in preventing surgical site infections after surgery for lower extremity bone tumors that required an endoprosthesis. The 5-day regimen group had significantly more antibiotic-related complications.

Pituitary adenomas, although histologically benign, are not always curable by surgery alone, principally because of dural infiltration, as well as their peculiar anatomical location. Radiotherapy has been employed as an adjuvant therapy to address residual disease with favourable results. This approach is, however, not without side effects, and it cannot be repeated. We are therefore investigating the effectiveness of photodynamic therapy (PDT) on recurrent pituitary adenomas in humans. This study details the protocol applied to 12 patients with recurrent pituitary adenomas, which involved systemic administration of photosensitizer (Photofrin) followed, after a period of 24-48 h, by intraoperative illumination of the tumour bed using 630 nm laser light. The primary end points were visual, endocrine and radiological improvement. The incidence of side effects was also monitored. The longest follow-up is 2 years. Most patients suffering from visual acuity or field defects have shown improvement when followed for 12 months or more. Three patients showed complete recovery of their visual fields. All those who presented with functional adenomas have shown reduction in their hormone levels. Tumour volume, relative to the preoperative size, was 122, 87, 66, 60 and 46% at 4 days, and 3, 6, 18 and 24 months, respectively. One patient developed severe skin photosensitization due to early exposure to direct sunlight and three others displayed minor skin reactions. There was no treatment-related mortality or morbidity. One patient (operated transcranially) developed hemiparesis postoperatively, which recovered completely. We think this is unrelated to the treatment. This prospective study demonstrates that PDT may be safely applied to the pituitary fossa by the trans-sphenoidal route and indicates the need for a randomized, controlled trial in order to establish its therapeutic potential.

ObjectiveTo develop a decision support package for people with low back pain (LBP) referred for physiotherapy.MethodsWe used a program of exploratory work, including literature reviews, a Delphi study, a nominal group with physiotherapists, focus groups with patients, and secondary analysis of existing interview data.ResultsWe developed an information booklet describing the evidence-based treatment modalities available in a physiotherapy department. This includes data on likely benefits and risks and how the intervention is delivered. The booklet specifically addresses questions identified as important in our exploratory work. Space is provided for patients to note down the pros and cons of each treatment and what matters to them when choosing treatments. The patient is subsequently directed to a section that explores any gaps in knowledge, values, support, and choice before finally clarifying if a treatment decision is possible. At this stage they are encouraged to note down any questions or concerns they have to be discussed at the first physiotherapy consultation. This overall package includes patient material in the form of a booklet posted prior to their consultation, plus the enhanced consultation with the specially trained physiotherapist. Patients then receive their chosen treatment. In addition we developed a training package for physiotherapists that explains the content of the booklet and supports them in using informed, shared decision making in their consultation.ConclusionThis package has the potential to improve effectiveness of treatments and patient satisfaction for LBP by facilitating patient choice and therefore matching patients more effectively to different treatments.