Trials
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study
Wean Earlier and Automatically with New technology (the WEAN study): a protocol of a multicentre, pilot randomized controlled trial.
Weaning is the process during which mechanical ventilation is withdrawn and the work of breathing is transferred from the ventilator back to the patient. Prolonged weaning is associated with development of ventilator-related complications and longer stays in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Computerized or Automated Weaning is a novel weaning strategy that continuously measures and adapts ventilator support (by frequently measuring and averaging three breathing parameters) and automatically conducts Spontaneous Breathing Trials to ascertain whether patients can resume autonomous breathing. Automated Weaning holds promise as a strategy to reduce the time spent on the ventilator, decrease ICU length of stay, and improve clinically important outcomes. ⋯ Mechanical ventilation studies are difficult to implement; requiring protocols to be operationalized continuously and entailing detailed daily data collection. As the first multicentre weaning RCT in Canada, the WEAN Study seeks to determine the feasibility of conducting a large scale future weaning trial and to establish a collaborative network of ICU clinicians dedicated to advancing the science of weaning.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study
The third symptom management research trial in oncology (SMaRT oncology-3): a randomised trial to determine the efficacy of adding a complex intervention for major depressive disorder (depression care for people with lung cancer) to usual care, compared to usual care alone in patients with lung cancer.
Depression Care for People with Lung Cancer is a complex intervention delivered by specially trained cancer nurses, under the supervision of a psychiatrist. It is given as a supplement to the usual care for depression, which patients receive from their general practitioner and cancer service. The third Symptom Management Research Trial in Oncology (SMaRT Oncology-3 Trial) will test its efficacy when compared to usual care alone. ⋯ A two arm parallel group multi-centre randomised controlled trial. 200 patients will be recruited through established systematic Symptom Monitoring Services, which screen patients for depression. Patients will have: a diagnosis of lung cancer; an estimated life expectancy of three months or more and a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder. Patients will be randomised to usual care or usual care plus Depression Care for People with Lung Cancer. Randomisation will be carried out by telephoning a secure computerised central randomisation system or by using a secure web interface. The primary outcome measure is average depression severity. This will be assessed using scores on the 20-item Symptom Hopkins Checklist (SCL-20D), collected every four weeks over 32 weeks. Secondary outcomes include severity of anxiety, pain and fatigue; self-rated improvement of depression; quality of life and satisfaction with depression care.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Rationale, design and methodology of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of escitalopram in prevention of Depression in Acute Coronary Syndrome (DECARD).
The prevalence of depression in patients with acute coronary syndrome, i.e. myocardial infarction and unstable angina, is higher than in the general population. The prevalence of anxiety is higher as well. Both depression and anxiety are associated with poor cardiac outcomes and higher mortality. Comorbid depression in patients with acute coronary syndrome often goes undiagnosed, and it is therefore a challenging task to prevent this risk factor. The study of DEpression in Coronary ARtery Disease (DECARD) is designed to examine if it is possible to prevent depression in patients with acute coronary syndrome. ⋯ This is the first study of prevention of depression in patients after acute coronary syndrome with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.
-
Subgroup analyses in randomized trials examine whether effects of interventions differ between subgroups of study populations according to characteristics of patients or interventions. However, findings from subgroup analyses may be misleading, potentially resulting in suboptimal clinical and health decision making. Few studies have investigated the reporting and conduct of subgroup analyses and a number of important questions remain unanswered. The objectives of this study are: 1) to describe the reporting of subgroup analyses and claims of subgroup effects in randomized controlled trials, 2) to assess study characteristics associated with reporting of subgroup analyses and with claims of subgroup effects, and 3) to examine the analysis, and interpretation of subgroup effects for each study's primary outcome. ⋯ A clear understanding of subgroup analyses, as currently conducted and reported in published randomized controlled trials, will reveal both strengths and weaknesses of this practice. Our findings will contribute to a set of recommendations to optimize the conduct and reporting of subgroup analyses, and claim and interpretation of subgroup effects in randomized trials.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
The efficacy of surgical decompression before 24 hours versus 24 to 72 hours in patients with spinal cord injury from T1 to L1--with specific consideration on ethics: a randomized controlled trial.
There is no clear evidence that early decompression following spinal cord injury (SCI) improves neurologic outcome. Such information must be obtained from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To date no large scale RCT has been performed evaluating the timing of surgical decompression in the setting of thoracolumbar spinal cord injury. A concern for many is the ethical dilemma that a delay in surgery may adversely effect neurologic recovery although this has never been conclusively proven. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of early (before 24 hours) verse late (24-72 hours) surgical decompression in terms of neurological improvement in the setting of traumatic thoracolumbar spinal cord injury in a randomized format by independent, trained and blinded examiners. ⋯ This study will hopefully assist in contributing to the question of the efficacy of the timing of surgery in traumatic thoracolumbar SCI.