http://hdl.handle.net/11343/159 2019-03-26T02:02:34Z http://hdl.handle.net/11343/221690 Update on the General Practice Optimising Structured Monitoring to Improve Clinical Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes (GP-OSMOTIC) trial: statistical analysis plan for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial Thuraisingam, S; Chondros, P; Catchpool, M; Dalziel, K; Manski-Nankervis, J-A; Speight, J; Holmes-Truscott, E; Audehm, R; Chiang, J; Blackberry, I; O'Neal, D; Khunti, K; Best, J; Furler, J BACKGROUND: General Practice Optimising Structured Monitoring to Improve Clinical Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes (GP-OSMOTIC) is a multicentre, individually randomised controlled trial aiming to compare the use of intermittent retrospective continuous glucose monitoring (r-CGM) to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes attending general practice. The study protocol was published in the British Medical Journal Open and described the principal features of the statistical methods that will be used to analyse the trial data. This paper provides greater detail on the statistical analysis plan, including background and justification for the statistical methods chosen, in accordance with SPIRIT guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To describe in detail the data management process and statistical methods that will be used to analyse the trial data. METHODS: An overview of the trial design and primary and secondary research questions are provided. Sample size assumptions and calculations are explained, and randomisation and data management processes are described in detail. The planned statistical analyses for primary and secondary outcomes and sub-group analyses are specified along with the intended table layouts for presentation of the results. CONCLUSION: In accordance with best practice, all analyses outlined in the document are based on the aims of the study and have been pre-specified prior to the completion of data collection and outcome analyses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616001372471 . Registered on 3 August 2016. 2019-01-30T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/11343/221689 Protocol for a prospective observational study to develop a frailty index for use in perioperative and critical care. Darvall, JN; Braat, S; Story, DA; Greentree, K; Bose, T; Loth, J; Lim, WK INTRODUCTION: Frailty is of increasing importance to perioperative and critical care medicine, as the proportion of older patients increases globally. Evidence continues to emerge of the considerable impact frailty has on adverse outcomes from both surgery and critical care, which has led to a proliferation of different frailty measurement tools in recent years. Despite this, there remains a lack of easily implemented, comprehensive frailty assessment tools specific to these complex populations. Development of a frailty index using routinely collected hospital data, able to leverage the automated aspects of an electronic medical record, would aid risk stratification and benefit clinicians and patients alike. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective observational study. 150 intensive care unit (ICU) patients aged ≥50 years and 200 surgical patients aged ≥65 years will be enrolled. The primary objective is to develop a frailty index. Secondary objectives include assessing its ability to predict in-hospital mortality and/or discharge to a new non-home location; the performance of the frailty index in predicting postoperative and ICU complications, as well as health-related quality of life at 6 months; to compare the performance of the frailty index against existing frailty measurement and risk stratification tools; and to assess its modification by patients' health assets. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee(20 January 2017, HREC/16/MH/321). Dissemination will be via international and national anaesthetic and critical care conferences, and publication in the peer-reviewed literature. 2019-01-09T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/11343/221688 Non-Invasive Positive airway Pressure thErapy to Reduce Postoperative Lung complications following Upper abdominal Surgery (NIPPER PLUS): protocol for a single-centre, pilot, randomised controlled trial. Lockstone, J; Boden, I; Robertson, IK; Story, D; Denehy, L; Parry, SM INTRODUCTION: Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) are a common serious complication following upper abdominal surgery leading to significant consequences including increased mortality, hospital costs and prolonged hospitalisation. The primary objective of this study is to detect whether there is a possible signal towards PPC reduction with the use of additional intermittent non-invasive ventilation (NIV) compared with continuous high-flow nasal oxygen therapy alone following high-risk elective upper abdominal surgery. Secondary objectives are to measure feasibility of: (1) trial conduct and design and (2) physiotherapy-led NIV and a high-flow nasal oxygen therapy protocol, safety of NIV and to provide preliminary costs of care information of NIV and high-flow nasal oxygen therapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a single-centre, parallel group, assessor blinded, pilot, randomised trial, with 130 high-risk upper abdominal surgery patients randomly assigned via concealed allocation to either (1) usual care of continuous high-flow nasal oxygen therapy for 48 hours following extubation or (2) usual care plus five additional 30 min physiotherapy-led NIV sessions within the first two postoperative days. Both groups receive standardised preoperative physiotherapy and postoperative early ambulation. No additional respiratory physiotherapy is provided to either group. Outcome measures will assess incidence of PPC within the first 14 postoperative days, recruitment ability, physiotherapy-led NIV and high-flow nasal oxygen therapy protocol adherence, adverse events relating to NIV delivery and costs of providing a physiotherapy-led NIV and a high-flow nasal oxygen therapy service following upper abdominal surgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained from the relevant institution and results will be published to inform future multicentre trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12617000269336; Pre-results. 2019-01-09T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/11343/221687 Clinical indicators for reporting the effectiveness of patient quality and safety-related interventions: a protocol of a systematic review and Delphi consensus process as part of the international Standardised Endpoints for Perioperative Medicine initiative (StEP) Bampoe, S; Cook, T; Fleisher, L; Grocott, MPW; Neuman, M; Story, D; Myles, P; Haller, G INTRODUCTION: Clinical indicators are used to measure and quantify the safety and quality of patient care. They are also often used as endpoints in clinical trials. Definitions of clinical indicators in common use are extremely heterogeneous, limiting their applicability. As part of the international Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative, this study will identify clinical indicators by systematically reviewing the anaesthesia and perioperative medicine literature, and will provide consensus, clinically useful definitions for those indicators using a Delphi process. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An electronic database search will be conducted of Medline (PubMed/OVID), EMBASE and the Cochrane Library in order to meet this review's objectives that are: (1) To identify clinical indicators and their definitions used in randomised controlled trials that assess patient-related quality and safety interventions in perioperative medicine; (2) To select a shortlist of recommended indicators and definitions that are the most suitable for evaluation of quality and safety interventions following an expert-based consensus-gaining process (Delphi method) and (3) To provide a classification scale for each indicator related to its clarity of definition, validity (strength), reliability, feasibility (ease of use) and frequency of use. This systematic review protocol is reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review and Delphi process. The results of this study will be disseminated to the anaesthesia and perioperative medicine clinical and academic community through national and international presentations and through publication in a peer reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016042102. 2018-11-01T00:00:00Z