Marion Dawn Teare

Background: Adaptive designs (ADs) are increasingly used, whereby outcome data accumulated during the trial may inform a trial’s course in accordance with pre-specified rules at interim analyses. The benefits however will only be realised if the approaches to conducting interim analyses are optimised. This study aims to identify existing literature highlighting best practice (and existing evidence gaps) with regard to conducting high-quality, timely interim analyses. Methods: Medline and Embase databases were searched for studies published between 2005 and July 2025 to identify best practice models and lessons learned for interim analyses in the delivery of adaptive trials. Specifically, we considered papers that discussed adaptive trial methodological approaches (Phases II–IV) in any clinical population and condition. A narrative synthesis focused on the following outcomes was conducted: design considerations, project/trial management, data management, statistical processes, trial committee processes, the implementation of interim decisions and patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE). Results: We screened 6720 articles from databases and citation chaining and assessed 329 articles at full text. One hundred and one articles representing 92 unique studies were deemed eligible for inclusion. Key issues included the following: (a) Detailed planning of interim analyses set out in the protocol, and all patient information sheets for possible changes prepared in advance; (b) Effective communication and collaborative decision-making processes across stakeholders, effective staff training, and prompt site query resolutions; (c) Use of electronic data capture with automated data flow processes with integrated query processes to improve data quality; and (d) Use of secure databases with data transfer procedures to maintain data integrity. Conclusion: The currently available data suggest that although there is a considerable volume of evidence with regards to the conduct of adaptive trials and good trial management, the existing literature base offers limited specific guidance for interim analyses. There are significant gaps in the literature regarding best practice guidance related to PPIE and statistical considerations in adaptive trials. While there are examples of innovative methods speeding up the collation and analysis of data used for interim analyses, we advocate more robust research exploring the operational opportunities and challenges with regards to undertaking adaptive trials.

Background/objectives: Maternal adiposity is a known risk factor for adverse pregnancy outcomes, yet routine antenatal care primarily relies on body mass index (BMI), which has limitations. This study aimed to explore the acceptability of incorporating a broader range of adiposity measurements into early pregnancy antenatal care, assessing pregnant women’s perceptions to inform implementation strategies. Methods: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was conducted with 14 pregnant women purposively sampled to capture variation in BMI, age, and parity. Interviews occurred approximately 4–5 months post-measurement experience. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) guided thematic analysis of transcribed data, with independent coding to ensure rigour. Results: Participants generally viewed the current reliance on BMI as outdated and expressed neutral to positive attitudes toward the use of more detailed adiposity measurements. Most reported little emotional discomfort with the process. However, some reflected likelihood of more body self-consciousness had it been their first pregnancy. Time involved in measurements was not seen as burdensome, however waiting between procedures was a minor inconvenience. Self-assessing body shape was described as difficult. Women emphasised the importance of choice, autonomy, and informed consent, especially in relation to partner involvement, the gender of the anthropometrist, and the nature of the procedures. Clear, advance communication and supportive explanations during appointments were seen as essential to ensuring a positive experience. Conclusions: Expanding adiposity assessments in early pregnancy is acceptable to women if implemented ethically, prioritising consent, privacy, emotional safety, and effective communication. Integration into routine care requires staff training and pre-appointment guidance.

Background: Adaptive designs are increasingly being used in clinical trials within diverse clinical areas. They can offer advantages over traditional non-adaptive approaches, including improved efficiency and patient benefit. The level of improvement observed in practice depends to a large degree on conducting interim analyses (at which adaptations can be made to the trial based on collected data) rapidly and to a high standard. Methods: The ROBust INterims for adaptive designs (ROBIN) project aimed to identify best practice for conducting high-quality and rapid interim analyses. This was done through evidence synthesis of published work, qualitative research with trial stakeholders working at public sector clinical trials units, engagement with patients and the public, and a meeting of trial stakeholders to discuss findings and agree recommendations. Results: This paper provides recommendations for teams that conduct adaptive trials about how to ensure interim analyses are done rapidly and to a high standard. We break down recommendations by stage of the trial. We also identify a lack of methodology on how best to involve patients in adaptive trials and related decision-making. A limitation of our recommendations is that the research was mostly focused on UK academic settings, although we believe much of the recommendations are relevant in other countries and to industry-sponsored trials. Conclusions: When following the recommendations outlined in this paper, the process of planning and executing interim analyses will be smoother; in turn, this will lead to more benefits from using adaptive designs.

Background: The indications for septoplasty are practice-based, rather than evidence-based. In addition, internationally accepted guidelines for the management of nasal obstruction associated with nasal septal deviation are lacking. Objective: The objective was to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of septoplasty, with or without turbinate reduction, compared with medical management, in the management of nasal obstruction associated with a deviated nasal septum. Design: This was a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing septoplasty, with or without turbinate reduction, with defined medical management; it incorporated a mixed-methods process evaluation and an economic evaluation. Setting: The trial was set in 17 NHS secondary care hospitals in the UK. Participants: A total of 378 eligible participants aged > 18 years were recruited. Interventions: Participants were randomised on a 1: 1 basis and stratified by baseline severity and gender to either (1) septoplasty, with or without turbinate surgery (n = 188) or (2) medical management with intranasal steroid spray and saline spray (n = 190). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items score at 6 months (patient-reported outcome). The secondary outcomes were as follows: patient-reported outcomes – Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation score at 6 and 12 months, Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items subscales at 12 months, Double Ordinal Airway Subjective Scale at 6 and 12 months, the Short Form questionnaire-36 items and costs; objective measurements – peak nasal inspiratory flow and rhinospirometry. The number of adverse events experienced was also recorded. A within-trial economic evaluation from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective estimated the incremental cost per (1) improvement (of ≥ 9 points) in Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items score, (2) adverse event avoided and (3) quality-adjusted life-year gained at 12 months. An economic model estimated the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 24 and 36 months. A mixed-methods process evaluation was undertaken to understand/address recruitment issues and examine the acceptability of trial processes and treatment arms. Results: At the 6-month time point, 307 participants provided primary outcome data (septoplasty, n = 152; medical management, n = 155). An intention-to-treat analysis revealed a greater and more sustained improvement in the primary outcome measure in the surgical arm. The 6-month mean Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items scores were −20.0 points lower (better) for participants randomised to septoplasty than for those randomised to medical management [the score for the septoplasty arm was 19.9 and the score for the medical management arm was 39.5 (95% confidence interval −23.6 to −16.4; p < 0.0001)]. This was confirmed by sensitivity analyses and through the analysis of secondary outcomes. Outcomes were statistically significantly related to baseline severity, but not to gender or turbinate reduction. In the surgical and medical management arms, 132 and 95 adverse events occurred, respectively; 14 serious adverse events occurred in the surgical arm and nine in the medical management arm. On average, septoplasty was more costly and more effective in improving Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items scores and quality-adjusted life-years than medical management, but incurred a larger number of adverse events. Septoplasty had a 15% probability of being considered cost-effective at 12 months at a £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold for an additional quality-adjusted life-year. This probability increased to 99% and 100% at 24 and 36 months, respectively. Limitations: COVID-19 had an impact on participant-facing data collection from March 2020. Conclusions: Septoplasty, with or without turbinate reduction, is more effective than medical management with a nasal steroid and saline spray. Baseline severity predicts the degree of improvement in symptoms. Septoplasty has a low probability of cost-effectiveness at 12 months, but may be considered cost-effective at 24 months. Future work should focus on developing a septoplasty patient decision aid. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN16168569 and EudraCT 2017-000893-12. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/226/07) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 10. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background: Instrumental variable (IV) analysis is a methodology used to study causal effects of treatments or exposures. If properly implemented, causal effects can be estimated even in the presence of unmeasured confounding. . Central to IV analysis is the identification of a valid instrument that satisfies three assumptions – one is empirically verifiable (Restriction) but the remainder require substantive knowledge and convincing argumentation (Exclusion restriction and Exchangeability). The objective of this study is to systematically review the strategies used to validate an IV in observational studies of dementia and neurodegenerative disease. This systematic review is pertinent given the increasing use of real‐world evidence to guide public health and regulatory decision‐making in lieu of randomised controlled trials.Methods: We conducted our search using PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. We included published observational studies investigating the causal effect of some risk factor, exposure, or treatment using IV analysis and using either a sample of: i) adults without diagnosis of dementia or neurodegenerative disease and an outcome of incident diagnosis of dementia or neurodegenerative disease; or ii) adult patients diagnosed with dementia, major neurocognitive disorder, or neurodegenerative disease and a clinical outcome related to incident dementia, mortality, hospitalisation, institutionalisation, serious adverse outcomes, medication adherence, cognition, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and biomarkers of neurodegeneration. We will extract and categorise text information directly arguing for the assumptions of a valid IV and the type(s) of falsification tests used.Results: 927 unique articles were retrieved. Screening for eligibility and data extraction by two study authors are currently underway. Results will be presented at the conference.Conclusions: Reviewing how variables have been reasoned to be valid IVs may help improve our understanding of the causal effects of treatments or exposures on dementia and neurodegenerative disease which may have relevance in shaping future therapeutic and management approaches.

Background: The place of tonsillectomy in the management of sore throat in adults remains uncertain. Objectives: To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tonsillectomy, compared with conservative management, for tonsillitis in adults, and to evaluate the impact of alternative sore throat patient pathways. Design: This was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing tonsillectomy with conservative management. The trial included a qualitative process evaluation and an economic evaluation. Setting: The study took place at 27 NHS secondary care hospitals in Great Britain. Participants: A total of 453 eligible participants with recurrent sore throats were recruited to the main trial. Interventions: Patients were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis between tonsil dissection and conservative management (i.e. deferred surgery) using a variable block-stratified design, stratified by (1) centre and (2) severity. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was the total number of sore throat days over 24 months following randomisation. The secondary outcome measures were the number of sore throat episodes and five characteristics from Sore Throat Alert Return, describing severity of the sore throat, use of medications, time away from usual activities and the Short Form questionnaire-12 items. Additional secondary outcomes were the Tonsil Outcome Inventory-14 total and subscales and Short Form questionnaire-12 items 6 monthly. Evaluation of the impact of alternative sore throat patient pathways by observation and statistical modelling of outcomes against baseline severity, as assessed by Tonsil Outcome Inventory-14 score at recruitment. The incremental cost per sore throat day avoided, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained based on responses to the Short Form questionnaire-12 items and the incremental net benefit based on costs and responses to a contingent valuation exercise. A qualitative process evaluation examined acceptability of trial processes and ramdomised arms. Results: There was a median of 27 (interquartile range 12–52) sore throats over the 24-month follow-up. A smaller number of sore throats was reported in the tonsillectomy arm [median 23 (interquartile range 11–46)] than in the conservative management arm [median 30 (interquartile range 14–65)]. On an intention-to-treat basis, there were fewer sore throats in the tonsillectomy arm (incident rate ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.65). Sensitivity analyses confirmed this, as did the secondary outcomes. There were 52 episodes of post-operative haemorrhage reported in 231 participants undergoing tonsillectomy (22.5%). There were 47 re-admissions following tonsillectomy (20.3%), 35 relating to haemorrhage. On average, tonsillectomy was more costly and more effective in terms of both sore throat days avoided and quality-adjusted life-years gained. Tonsillectomy had a 100% probability of being considered cost-effective if the threshold for an additional quality-adjusted life year was £20,000. Tonsillectomy had a 69% probability of having a higher net benefit than conservative management. Trial processes were deemed to be acceptable. Patients who received surgery were unanimous in reporting to be happy to have received it. Limitations: The decliners who provided data tended to have higher Tonsillectomy Outcome Inventory-14 scores than those willing to be randomised implying that patients with a higher burden of tonsillitis symptoms may have declined entry into the trial. Conclusions: The tonsillectomy arm had fewer sore throat days over 24 months than the conservative management arm, and had a high probability of being considered cost-effective over the ranges considered. Further work should focus on when tonsillectomy should be offered. National Trial of Tonsillectomy IN Adults has assessed the effectiveness of tonsillectomy when offered for the current UK threshold of disease burden. Further research is required to define the minimum disease burden at which tonsillectomy becomes clinically effective and cost-effective. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN55284102. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/146/06) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 31. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background Social skills interventions are commonly recommended to help children and young people with autism spectrum disorder develop social skills, but some struggle to engage in these interventions. LEGO® (LEGO System A/S, Billund, Denmark) based therapy, a group social skills intervention, aims to be more interesting and engaging. Objective To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of LEGO® based therapy on the social and emotional skills of children and young people with autism spectrum disorder in school settings compared with usual support. Secondary objectives included evaluations of cost-effectiveness, acceptability and treatment fidelity. Design A cluster randomised controlled trial randomly allocating participating schools to either LEGO® based therapy and usual support or usual support only. Setting Mainstream schools in the north of England. Participants Children and young people (aged 7–15 years) with autism spectrum disorder, their parent/guardian, an associated teacher/teaching assistant and a facilitator teacher/teaching assistant (intervention schools only). Intervention Schools randomised to the intervention arm delivered 12 weekly sessions of LEGO® based therapy, which promotes collaborative play and encourages social problem-solving in groups of three children and young people with a facilitator (trained teacher or teaching assistant). Participants received usual support from school and community services. Participants in the control arm received usual support only. Research assistants and statisticians were blind to treatment allocation. Main outcome measure The social skills subscale of the Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS), completed by the children and young people’s unblinded teacher pre randomisation and 20 weeks post randomisation. The SSIS social skills subscale measures social skills including social communication, co-operation, empathy, assertion, responsibility and self-control. Participants completed a number of other pre- and post-randomisation measures of emotional health, quality of life, loneliness, problem behaviours, academic competence, service resource utilisation and adverse events. Results A total of 250 children and young people from 98 schools were randomised: 127 to the intervention arm and 123 to the control arm. Intention-to-treat analysis of the main outcome measure showed a modest positive difference of 3.74 points (95% confidence interval –0.16 to 7.63 points, standardised effect size 0.18; p = 0.06) in favour of the intervention arm. Statistical significance increased in per-protocol analysis, with a modest positive difference (standardised effect size 0.21; p = 0.036). Cost-effectiveness of the intervention was found in reduced service use costs and a small increase in quality-adjusted life-years. Intervention fidelity and acceptability were positive. No intervention-related adverse events or effects were reported. Conclusions The primary and pre-planned sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome consistently showed a positive clinical difference, with modest standardised effect sizes of between 0.15 and 0.21. There were positive health economics and qualitative findings, corroborated by the difference between arms for the majority of secondary outcomes, which were not statistically significant but favoured the intervention arm. Post hoc additional analysis was exploratory and was not used in drawing this conclusion. Given the small positive change, LEGO® based therapy for children and young people with autism spectrum disorder in schools should be considered. Limitations The primary outcome measure was completed by an unblinded teacher (rather than by the facilitator). Future work The study team recommends future research into LEGO® based therapy, particularly in school environments. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN64852382. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/49/32) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 11, No. 12. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Introduction Observational studies represent an alternative to estimate real-world causal effects in the absence of available randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Target trial emulation is a framework for the application of RCT design principles to emulate a hypothetical open-label RCT (the hypothetical target trial) using existing observational data as the primary data source as opposed to the prospective recruitment and measurement of randomised units. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the practices of studies applying the target trial emulation framework to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions. Methods and analysis We will systematically search in Medline (via Ovid), Embase (via Ovid, entries from medRxiv are included), PsycINFO (via Ovid), SCOPUS, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, the ISRCTN registry and ClinicalTrials.gov for all study reports and protocols which used the trial emulation framework (without time restriction). We will extract information concerning study design, data source, analysis, results, interpretation and dissemination. Two reviewers will perform study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. Disagreements between reviewers will be resolved by a third reviewer. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidance (PRISMA). Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required as it is a protocol for a systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

Background: The rhetoric surrounding clinical artificial intelligence (AI) often exaggerates its effect on real-world care. Limited understanding of the factors that influence its implementation can perpetuate this. Objective: In this qualitative systematic review, we aimed to identify key stakeholders, consolidate their perspectives on clinical AI implementation, and characterize the evidence gaps that future qualitative research should target. Methods: Ovid-MEDLINE, EBSCO-CINAHL, ACM Digital Library, Science Citation Index-Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for primary qualitative studies on individuals’ perspectives on any application of clinical AI worldwide (January 2014-April 2021). The definition of clinical AI includes both rule-based and machine learning–enabled or non–rule-based decision support tools. The language of the reports was not an exclusion criterion. Two independent reviewers performed title, abstract, and full-text screening with a third arbiter of disagreement. Two reviewers assigned the Joanna Briggs Institute 10-point checklist for qualitative research scores for each study. A single reviewer extracted free-text data relevant to clinical AI implementation, noting the stakeholders contributing to each excerpt. The best-fit framework synthesis used the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework. To validate the data and improve accessibility, coauthors representing each emergent stakeholder group codeveloped summaries of the factors most relevant to their respective groups. Results: The initial search yielded 4437 deduplicated articles, with 111 (2.5%) eligible for inclusion (median Joanna Briggs Institute 10-point checklist for qualitative research score, 8/10). Five distinct stakeholder groups emerged from the data: health care professionals (HCPs), patients, carers and other members of the public, developers, health care managers and leaders, and regulators or policy makers, contributing 1204 (70%), 196 (11.4%), 133 (7.7%), 129 (7.5%), and 59 (3.4%) of 1721 eligible excerpts, respectively. All stakeholder groups independently identified a breadth of implementation factors, with each producing data that were mapped between 17 and 24 of the 27 adapted Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability subdomains. Most of the factors that stakeholders found influential in the implementation of rule-based clinical AI also applied to non–rule-based clinical AI, with the exception of intellectual property, regulation, and sociocultural attitudes. Conclusions: Clinical AI implementation is influenced by many interdependent factors, which are in turn influenced by at least 5 distinct stakeholder groups. This implies that effective research and practice of clinical AI implementation should consider multiple stakeholder perspectives. The current underrepresentation of perspectives from stakeholders other than HCPs in the literature may limit the anticipation and management of the factors that influence successful clinical AI implementation. Future research should not only widen the representation of tools and contexts in qualitative research but also specifically investigate the perspectives of all stakeholder HCPs and emerging aspects of non–rule-based clinical AI implementation. Trial Registration: PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) CRD42021256005; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=256005 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/33145

Background: Up to 10% of children and young people have a specific phobia that can significantly affect their mental health, development and daily functioning. Cognitive–behavioural therapy-based interventions remain the dominant treatment, but limitations to their provision warrant investigation into low-intensity alternatives. One-session treatment is one such alternative that shares cognitive–behavioural therapy principles but has a shorter treatment period.Objective: This research investigated the non-inferiority of one-session treatment to cognitive–behavioural therapy for treating specific phobias in children and young people. The acceptability and cost-effectiveness of one-session treatment were examined.Design: A pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial, with embedded economic and qualitative evaluations.Settings: There were 26 sites, including 12 NHS trusts.Participants: Participants were aged 7–16 years and had a specific phobia defined in accordance with established international clinical criteria.Interventions: Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to receive one-session treatment or usual-care cognitive–behavioural therapy, and were stratified according to age and phobia severity. Outcome assessors remained blind to treatment allocation.Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was the Behavioural Avoidance Task at 6 months’ follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule, Child Anxiety Impact Scale, Revised Children’s Anxiety and Depression Scale, a goal-based outcome measure, Child Health Utility 9D, EuroQol-5 Dimensions Youth version and resource usage. Treatment fidelity was assessed using the Cognitive Behaviour Therapy Scale for Children and Young People and the One-Session Treatment Rating Scale.Results: A total of 274 participants were recruited, with 268 participants randomised to one-session treatment (n = 134) or cognitive–behavioural therapy (n = 134). A total of 197 participants contributed some data, with 149 participants in the intention-to-treat analysis and 113 in the per-protocol analysis. Mean Behavioural Avoidance Task scores at 6 months were similar across treatment groups when both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were applied [cognitive–behavioural therapy: 7.1 (intention to treat), 7.4 (per protocol); one-session treatment: 7.4 (intention to treat), 7.6 (per protocol); on the standardised scale adjusted mean difference for cognitive–behavioural therapy compared with one-session treatment –0.123, 95% confidence interval –0.449 to 0.202 (intention to treat), mean difference –0.204, 95% confidence interval –0.579 to 0.171 (per protocol)]. These findings were wholly below the standardised non-inferiority limit of 0.4, which suggests that one-session treatment is non-inferior to cognitive–behavioural therapy. No between-group differences in secondary outcome measures were found. The health economics evaluation suggested that, compared with cognitive–behavioural therapy, one-session treatment marginally decreased the mean service use costs and maintained similar mean quality-adjusted life-year improvement. Nested qualitative evaluation found one-session treatment to be considered acceptable by those who received it, their parents/guardians and clinicians. No adverse events occurred as a result of phobia treatment.Limitations: The COVID-19 pandemic meant that 48 children and young people could not complete the primary outcome measure. Service waiting times resulted in some participants not starting therapy before follow-up.Conclusions: One-session treatment for specific phobia in UK-based child mental health treatment centres is as clinically effective as multisession cognitive–behavioural therapy and highly likely to be cost-saving. Future work could involve improving the implementation of one-session treatment through training and commissioning of improved care pathways.Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN19883421.Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 42. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.