BackgroundCurrent Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance on complex interventions advocates pilot trials and feasibility studies as part of a phased approach to the development, testing, and evaluation of healthcare interventions. In this paper we discuss the results of a recent feasibility study and pilot trial for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of pelvic floor muscle training for prolapse (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01136889). The ways in which researchers decide to respond to the results of feasibility work may have significant repercussions for both the nature and degree of tension between internal and external validity in a definitive trial.MethodsWe used methodological issues to classify and analyze the problems that arose in the feasibility study. Four centers participated with the aim of randomizing 50 women. Women were eligible if they had prolapse of any type, of stage I to IV, and had a pessary successfully fitted. Postal questionnaires were administered at baseline, 6 months, and 7 months post-randomization. After identifying problems arising within the pilot study we then sought to locate potential solutions that might minimize the trade-off between a subsequent explanatory versus pragmatic trial.ResultsThe feasibility study pointed to significant potential problems in relation to participant recruitment, features of the intervention, acceptability of the intervention to participants, and outcome measurement. Finding minimal evidence to support our decision-making regarding the transition from feasibility work to a trial, we developed a systematic process (A process for Decision-making after Pilot and feasibility Trials (ADePT)) which we subsequently used as a guide. The process sought to: 1) encourage the systematic identification and appraisal of problems and potential solutions; 2) improve the transparency of decision-making processes; and 3) reveal the tensions that exist between pragmatic and explanatory choices.ConclusionsWe have developed a process that may aid researchers in their attempt to identify the most appropriate solutions to problems identified within future pilot and feasibility RCTs. The process includes three key steps: a decision about the type of problem, the identification of all solutions (whether addressed within the intervention, trial design or clinical context), and a systematic appraisal of these solutions.

Summary Background The anti-progesterone drug mifepristone and the prostaglandin misoprostol can be used to treat missed miscarriage. However, it is unclear whether a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is more effective than administering misoprostol alone. We investigated whether treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol would result in a higher rate of completion of missed miscarriage compared with misoprostol alone. Methods MifeMiso was a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial in 28 UK hospitals. Women were eligible for enrolment if they were aged 16 years and older, diagnosed with a missed miscarriage by pelvic ultrasound scan in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, chose to have medical management of miscarriage, and were willing and able to give informed consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a single dose of oral mifepristone 200 mg or an oral placebo tablet, both followed by a single dose of vaginal, oral, or sublingual misoprostol 800 μg 2 days later. Randomisation was managed via a secure web-based randomisation program, with minimisation to balance study group assignments according to maternal age (<30 years vs ≥30 years), body-mass index (<35 kg/m 2 vs ≥35 kg/m 2 ), previous parity (nulliparous women vs parous women), gestational age (<70 days vs ≥70 days), amount of bleeding (Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score; ≤2 vs ≥3), and randomising centre. Participants, clinicians, pharmacists, trial nurses, and midwives were masked to study group assignment throughout the trial. The primary outcome was failure to spontaneously pass the gestational sac within 7 days after random assignment. Primary analyses were done according to intention-to-treat principles. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN17405024. Findings Between Oct 3, 2017, and July 22, 2019, 2595 women were identified as being eligible for the MifeMiso trial. 711 women were randomly assigned to receive either mifepristone and misoprostol (357 women) or placebo and misoprostol (354 women). 696 (98%) of 711 women had available data for the primary outcome. 59 (17%) of 348 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group did not pass the gestational sac spontaneously within 7 days versus 82 (24%) of 348 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio [RR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·54–0·99; p=0·043). 62 (17%) of 355 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group required surgical intervention to complete the miscarriage versus 87 (25%) of 353 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (0·71, 0·53–0·95; p=0·021). We found no difference in incidence of adverse events between the study groups. Interpretation Treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol was more effective than misoprostol alone in t...

Objective To compare the 'inside-out' versus 'outside-in' routes for transobturator tape insertion for urodynamic stress incontinence, and to identify independent risk factors for failure at 1 year.Design Prospective single-blinded randomised trial.Setting Tertiary urogynaecology centre. Methods Women were randomised to tension-free vaginal tape-obturator (TVT)-OÔ for the 'inside-out' route (n = 170) and transobturator tape (TOT)-ARISÒ for the 'outside-in' route (n = 171). Participants completed validated symptom-severity, quality-of-life and sexual-function questionnaires before and after surgery. In addition, they completed the patient global impression of improvement questionnaire (PGI-I) and standard 1-hour pad test postoperatively.Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the patientreported success rate reported on the PGI-I scale. Secondary outcomes included objective cure rate and improvement in King's Health Questionnaire scores.Results A total of 341 women were recruited: 171 women to the 'outside-in' (TOT-ARISÒ) group and 170 to the 'inside-out' (TVT-OÔ) group; 299 completed the 1-year follow up. The patient-reported success rate was 80% with no statistically significant differences between the groups ('outside-in' 77.6% versus 'inside-out' 81.2%; OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.71, 2.20; P = 0.54). The objective cure rate was 91% with no statistically significant difference between the groups ('outside-in' 88% versus 'insideout' 94%; OR 2.21; 95% CI 0.85, 5.75; P = 0.157). Previous incontinence surgery (OR 1.41; 95% CI 1.18, 1.91; P = 0.029) and preoperative urgency incontinence (OR 1.78; 95% CI 1.21, 3.91, P = 0.048) were significant risk factors for failure of transobturator tape at the 1-year follow up.Conclusions There are no significant differences in patient reported and objective cure rates between 'inside-out' and 'outside-in' transobturator tapes. Quality of life and sexual function significantly improved following surgery. Both previous incontinence surgery and preoperative urgency incontinence are associated with significantly lower patient-reported cure rates. Keywords ARISÒ , tension-free vaginal tapes, transobturator tape, TVT-OÔ, urodynamic stress incontinence.Please cite this paper as: Abdel-fattah M, Ramsay I, Pringle S, Hardwick C, Ali H, Young D, Mostafa A. Randomised prospective single-blinded study comparing 'inside-out' versus 'outside-in' transobturator tapes in the management of urodynamic stress incontinence: 1-year outcomes from the E-TOT study.

choice of tape was primarily decided by the surgeons' preference. RESULTSIn all, 316 women had a transobturator tape procedure, of which 96 were associated with another procedure; 112 women had TVT-O using the 'inside-out' technique and 204 had the 'outside-in' technique. Of the latter, 192 had Obtape, four had Obtryx (Boston Scientific) and eight had Monarc (American Medical Systems Inc.) tapes. Sixteen women developed vaginal tape erosion, and significantly more were in the Obtape group than in the TVT-O group (7.29% vs 1.78%, P = 0.038). The patients' age, body mass index, previous vaginal surgery and concomitant vaginal surgery were not significant risk factors for erosions. The time between surgery and diagnosis of erosion was 1-45 weeks, with only one patient being asymptomatic; all others presented with clinical symptoms such as vaginal bleeding, discharge and dyspareunia. Thirteen patients were continent at presentation and 10 of these remained continent after surgical management. In the TVT-O group the erosions were in the lateral vaginal wall, while in the Obtape group the erosions were in the form of central tape extrusion secondary to defective vaginal wall healing. CONCLUSIONThere were significantly more vaginal tape erosions in the Obtape group than in the TVT-O group. No cases of urethral erosions were identified.