scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness and quality of life in surgeon versus general practitioner-organised colon cancer surveillance: a randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. e002391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Knut Magne Augestad ◽  
Jan Norum ◽  
Stefan Dehof ◽  
Ranveig Aspevik ◽  
Unni Ringberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
General Practitioner ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cancer Surveillance ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Colon Cancer Surveillance

scholarly journals SOMA-trial: surgery or medication for women with an endometrioma? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial and cohort study

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
E van Barneveld ◽  
V B Veth ◽  
J M Sampat ◽  
A M F Schreurs ◽  
M van Wely ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Pain Reduction ◽  
Deep Endometriosis ◽  
Ovarian Endometrioma ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract STUDY QUESTIONS The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment of women suffering from pain due to an ovarian endometrioma when compared to treatment with medication (analgesia and/or hormones). The primary outcome is defined as successful pain reduction (−30% reduction of pain) measured by the numeric rating scale (NRS) after 6 months. Secondary outcomes include successful pain reduction after 12 and 18 months, quality of life, affective symptoms, cost-effectiveness, recurrence rate, need of adjuvant medication after surgery, ovarian reserve, adjuvant surgery and budget impact. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Evidence suggests that both medication and surgical treatment of an ovarian endometrioma are effective in reducing pain and improving quality of life. However, there are no randomised studies that compare surgery to treatment with medication. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This study will be performed in a research network of university and teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. A multicentre randomised controlled trial and parallel prospective cohort study in patients with an ovarian endometrioma, with the exclusion of patients with deep endometriosis, will be conducted. After obtaining informed consent, eligible patients will be randomly allocated to either treatment arm (medication or surgery) by using web-based block randomisation stratified per centre. A successful pain reduction is set at a 30% decrease on the NRS at 6 months after randomisation. Based on a power of 80% and an alpha of 5% and using a continuity correction, a sample size of 69 patients in each treatment arm is needed. Accounting for a drop-out rate of 25% (i.e. loss to follow up), we need to include 92 patients in each treatment arm, i.e. 184 in total. Simultaneously, a cohort study will be performed for eligible patients who are not willing to be randomised because of a distinct preference for one of the two treatment arms. We intend to include 100 women in each treatment arm to enable standardization by inverse probability weighting, which means 200 patients in total. The expected inclusion period is 24 months with a follow-up of 18 months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Premenopausal women (age ≥ 18 years) with pain (dysmenorrhoea, pelvic pain or dyspareunia) and an ovarian endometrioma (cyst diameter ≥ 3 cm) who visit the outpatient clinic will make up the study population. Patients with signs of deep endometriosis will be excluded. The primary outcome is successful pain reduction, which is defined as a 30% decrease of pain on the NRS at 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include successful pain reduction after 12 and 18 months, quality of life and affective symptoms, cost-effectiveness (from a healthcare and societal perspective), number of participants needing additional surgery, need of adjuvant medication after surgery, ovarian reserve and recurrence rate of endometriomas. Measurements will be performed at baseline, 6 weeks and 6, 12 and 18 months after randomisation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study is funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development, project number 80-85200-98-91041. The Department of Reproductive Medicine of the Amsterdam UMC location VUmc has received several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck KGaA and Ferring not related to the submitted work. B.W.J. Mol is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet. V. Mijatovic reports grants from Guerbet, grants from Merck and grants from Ferring outside the submitted work. All authors declare that they have no competing interests concerning this publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Dutch Trial Register (NTR 7447, http://www.trialregister.nl). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 2 January 2019 DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT First inclusion in randomised controlled trial October 4, 2019. First inclusion in cohort May 22, 2019.

scholarly journals Laser in Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension (LiGHT) trial. A multicentre, randomised controlled trial: design and methodology

2017 ◽  
Vol 102 (5) ◽  
pp. 593-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gus Gazzard ◽  
Evgenia Konstantakopoulou ◽  
David Garway-Heath ◽  
Keith Barton ◽  
Richard Wormald ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Ocular Hypertension ◽  
Medical Therapy ◽  
Initial Treatment ◽  
Open Angle Glaucoma ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomised Controlled

PurposeThe Laser in Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension (LiGHT) Trial aims to establish whether initial treatment with selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) is superior to initial treatment with topical medication for primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT).DesignThe LiGHT Trial is a prospective, unmasked, multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. 718 previously untreated patients with POAG or OHT were recruited at six collaborating centres in the UK between 2012 and 2014. The trial comprises two treatment arms: initial SLT followed by conventional medical therapy as required, and medical therapy without laser therapy. Randomisation was provided online by a web-based randomisation service. Participants will be monitored for 3 years, according to routine clinical practice. The target intraocular pressure (IOP) was set at baseline according to an algorithm, based on disease severity and lifetime risk of loss of vision at recruitment, and subsequently adjusted on the basis of IOP control, optic disc and visual field. The primary outcome measure is health-related quality of life (HRQL) (EQ-5D five-level). Secondary outcomes are treatment pathway cost and cost-effectiveness, Glaucoma Utility Index, Glaucoma Symptom Scale, Glaucoma Quality of Life, objective measures of pathway effectiveness, visual function and safety profiles and concordance. A single main analysis will be performed at the end of the trial on an intention-to-treat basis.ConclusionsThe LiGHT Trial is a multicentre, pragmatic, randomised clinical trial that will provide valuable data on the relative HRQL, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SLT and topical IOP-lowering medication.Trial registration numberISRCTN32038223, Pre-results.

scholarly journals Protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the diabetes community exercise and education programme (DCEP) for long-term management of diabetes

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e025578
Author(s):  
Leigh Hale ◽  
Tim Stokes ◽  
Bonnie Scarth ◽  
Ramakrishnan Mani ◽  
Trudy Sullivan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Education Programme ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionType 2 diabetes is common in Māori and Pacific peoples and in those living in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation in New Zealand (NZ). People with type 2 diabetes often have multimorbidity, which makes their diabetes management more complex. The Diabetes Community Exercise and Education Programme (DCEP) is an interprofessional, patient-centred, whānau (family)-supported package of care specifically developed to engage with Māori and Pacific people and those living in deprived areas. We have previously demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of the DCEP. This study aims to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the DCEP through a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT).Methods and analysis220 adults (age ≥35 years) with type 2 diabetes will be recruited from general practices in the lower South Island of NZ (Dunedin and Invercargill) to participate in an RCT. Participants will be randomised to intervention (DCEP) and control (usual care) groups. The DCEP participants will have their exercise goals agreed on with a physiotherapist and nurse and will attend two 90 min exercise and education sessions per week for 12 weeks. The primary outcome measure is blood glucose control (glycated haemoglobin). Secondary outcome measures include quality of life assessed using the Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life questionnaire. Data will be collected at four time points: baseline, end of the 12-week intervention (3 months), 6 months postintervention (9 months) and 12 months after the intervention ends (15 months). We will also conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis and a qualitative process evaluation.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the Health and Disability Ethics Committee, Ministry of Health (HDEC17/CEN/241/AM01). A key output will be the development of an evidence-based training package to facilitate implementation of the DCEP in other NZ regions.Trial registration numberACTRN 12617001624370 p; Pre-results.

scholarly journals Clinical and cost-effectiveness of a guided internet-based Acceptance and Commitment Therapy to improve chronic pain–related disability in green professions (PACT-A): study protocol of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e034271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yannik Terhorst ◽  
Lina Braun ◽  
Ingrid Titzler ◽  
Claudia Buntrock ◽  
Johanna Freund ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Acceptance And Commitment Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Acceptance And Commitment ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Pragmatic Randomised Controlled Trial

IntroductionChronic pain is highly prevalent, associated with substantial personal and economic burdens, and increased risk for mental disorders. Individuals in green professions (agriculturists, horticulturists, foresters) show increased prevalence of chronic pain and other risk factors for mental disorders. Available healthcare services in rural areas are limited. Acceptance towards face-to-face therapy is low. Internet and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) might be a promising alternative for this population and may enable effective treatment of chronic pain. The present study aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an ACT-based IMI for chronic pain in green professions in comparison with enhanced treatment as usual (TAU+).Methods and analysisA two-armed pragmatic randomised controlled trial will be conducted. Two hundred eighty-six participants will be randomised and allocated to either an intervention or TAU+ group. Entrepreneurs in green professions, collaborating spouses, family members and pensioners with chronic pain are eligible for inclusion. The intervention group receives an internet-based intervention based on ACT (7 modules, over 7 weeks) guided by a trained e-coach to support adherence (eg, by positive reinforcement). Primary outcome is pain interference (Multidimensional Pain Interference scale; MPI) at 9 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes are depression severity (Quick Inventory Depressive Symptomology; QIDS-SR16), incidence of major depressive disorder, quality of life (Assessment of Quality of Life; AQoL-8D) and possible side effects associated with the treatment (Inventory for the Assessment of Negative Effects of Psychotherapy; INEP). Psychological flexibility (Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire, Committed Action Questionnaire, Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire) will be evaluated as a potential mediator of the treatment effect. Furthermore, mediation, moderation and health-economic analyses from a societal perspective will be performed. Outcomes will be measured using online self-report questionnaires at baseline, 9-week, 6-month, 12-month, 24-month and 36-month follow-ups.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Ulm, Germany (file no. 453/17—FSt/Sta; 22 February 2018). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences.Trial registration numberGerman Clinical Trial Registration: DRKS00014619. Registered on 16 April 2018.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document