1
|
Bresnahan R, Copley S, Eldabe S, Thomson S, North RB, Baranidharan G, Levy RM, Collins GS, Taylor RS, Duarte RV. Reporting guidelines for protocols of randomised controlled trials of implantable neurostimulation devices: the SPIRIT-iNeurostim extension. EClinicalMedicine 2024; 78:102933. [PMID: 39610902 PMCID: PMC11602573 DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102933] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2024] [Revised: 10/22/2024] [Accepted: 10/25/2024] [Indexed: 11/30/2024] Open
Abstract
Background The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement has improved the quality of reporting of randomised trial protocols. Extensions to the SPIRIT statement are needed to address specific issues of trial protocol reporting, including those relevant to particular types of interventions. Methodological and reporting deficiencies in protocols of clinical trials of implantable neurostimulation devices are common. The SPIRIT-iNeurostim extension is a new reporting guideline for randomised controlled trial protocols evaluating implantable neurostimulation devices. Methods SPIRIT-iNeurostim was developed using the EQUATOR methodological framework including a literature review and expert consultation to generate an initial list of candidate items. The candidate items were included in a two-round Delphi survey, discussed at an international consensus meeting (42 stakeholders including healthcare professionals, methodologists, journal editors and industry representatives from the United States, United Kingdom, Netherlands and other countries), and refined through a checklist pilot (18 stakeholders). Findings The initial extension item list included 42 candidate items relevant to SPIRIT-iNeurostim. We received 132 responses in the first round of the Delphi survey and 99 responses in the second round. Participants suggested an additional 14 candidate items for SPIRIT-iNeurostim during the first round of the survey, and those achieving initial consensus were discussed at the consensus meeting. The SPIRIT-iNeurostim extension includes 5 new checklist items, including one item for reporting the neurostimulation intervention comprising a separate checklist of 14 items. Interpretation The SPIRIT-iNeurostim extension will help to promote increased transparency, clarity, and completeness of reporting trial protocols evaluating implantable neurostimulation devices. It will assist journal editors, peer-reviewers, and readers to better interpret the appropriateness and generalisability of the methods used for a planned clinical trial. Funding Abbott, Boston Scientific Corp., Mainstay Medical, Medtronic Ltd, Nevro Corp., and Saluda Medical.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca Bresnahan
- Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Sue Copley
- Department of Pain Medicine, The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK
| | - Sam Eldabe
- Department of Pain Medicine, The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK
| | - Simon Thomson
- Pain Medicine and Neuromodulation, Mid and South Essex University Hospitals NHSFT, Basildon, UK
| | - Richard B. North
- Neurosurgery, Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine (ret.), Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | | | - Robert M. Levy
- International Neuromodulation Society, San Francisco, USA
| | - Gary S. Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- UK EQUATOR Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Rod S. Taylor
- MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit & Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, Institute of Health and Well Being, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Rui V. Duarte
- Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
- Saluda Medical Pty Ltd, Macquarie Park, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lambrineas LJ, Brock HG, Ong HI, Tisseverasinghe S, Carrington E, Heriot A, Burgess A, Proud D, Mohan H. Challenges in evaluating pelvic floor physiotherapy based strategies in low anterior resection syndrome: a systematic review and qualitative analysis. Colorectal Dis 2024; 26:258-271. [PMID: 38173138 DOI: 10.1111/codi.16839] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/26/2023] [Revised: 11/08/2023] [Accepted: 11/22/2023] [Indexed: 01/05/2024]
Abstract
AIM Physiotherapy is an established treatment strategy for low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). However, data on its efficacy are limited. This is in part due to the inherent challenges in study design in this context. This systematic review aims to analyse the methodology of studies using pelvic floor physiotherapy for treatment of LARS to elucidate the challenges and limitations faced, which may inform the design of future prospective trials. METHODOLOGY A systematic review of the literature was undertaken through MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library, yielding 345 unique records for screening. Five studies were identified for review. Content thematic analysis of study limitations was carried out using the Braun and Clarke method. Line-by-line coding was used to organize implicit and explicit challenges and limitations under broad organizing categories. RESULTS Key challenges fell into five overarching categories: patient-related issues, cancer-related issues, adequate symptomatic control, intervention-related issues and measurement of outcomes. Adherence, attrition and randomization contributed to potential bias within these studies, with imbalance in the baseline patient characteristics, particularly gender and baseline pelvic floor function scores. Outcome measurements consisted of patient-reported measures and quality of life measures, where significant improvements in bowel function according to patient-reported outcome measures were not reflected in the quality of life scores. CONCLUSION Upcoming trial design in the area of pelvic floor physiotherapy for faecal incontinence related to rectal cancer surgery can be cognisant of and design around the challenges identified in this systematic review, including the reduction of bias, exclusion of the placebo effect and the potential cultural differences in attitude towards a sensitive intervention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lauren J Lambrineas
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Henry G Brock
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Hwa Ian Ong
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | | | | | - Alexander Heriot
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Adele Burgess
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - David Proud
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Helen Mohan
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Brock H, Lambrineas L, Ong HI, Chen WY, Das A, Edsell A, Proud D, Carrington E, Smart P, Mohan H, Burgess A. Preventative strategies for low anterior resection syndrome. Tech Coloproctol 2023; 28:10. [PMID: 38091118 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-023-02872-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2023] [Accepted: 11/11/2023] [Indexed: 12/18/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A common and debilitating complication of low anterior resection for rectal cancer is low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). As a multifactorial entity, LARS is poorly understood and challenging to treat. Despite this, prevention strategies are commonly overlooked. Our aim was to review the pathophysiology of LARS and explore current evidence on the efficacy and feasibility of prophylactic techniques. METHODS A literature review was performed between [1st January 2000 to 1st October 2023] for studies which investigated preventative interventions for LARS. Mechanisms by which LARS develop are described, followed by a review of prophylactic strategies to prevent LARS. Medline, Cochrane, and PubMed databases were searched, 189 articles screened, 8 duplicates removed and 18 studies reviewed. RESULTS Colonic dysmotility, anal sphincter dysfunction and neorectal dysfunction all contribute to the development of LARS, with the complex mechanism of defecation interrupted by surgery. Transanal irrigation (TAI) and pelvic floor rehabilitation (PFR) have shown benefits in preventing LARS, but may be limited by patient compliance. Intraoperative nerve monitoring (IONM) and robotic-assisted surgery have shown some promise in surgically preventing LARS. Nerve stimulation and other novel strategies currently used in treatment of LARS have yet to be investigated in their roles prophylactically. CONCLUSIONS To date, there is a limited evidence base for all preventative strategies including IONM, RAS, PFP and TAI. These strategies are limited by either access (IONM, RAS and PFP) or acceptability (PFP and TAI), which are both key to the success of any intervention. The results of ongoing trials will serve to assess acceptability, while technological advancement may improve access to some of the aforementioned strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- H Brock
- Austin Health, Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia
- Western General, Melbourne, Australia
| | - L Lambrineas
- Austin Health, Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - H I Ong
- Austin Health, Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia.
| | - W Y Chen
- Austin Health, Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - A Das
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | - A Edsell
- Austin Health, Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - D Proud
- Austin Health, Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | | | - P Smart
- Austin Health, Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | - H Mohan
- Austin Health, Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | - A Burgess
- Austin Health, Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|