FreshRSS

🔒
☐ ☆ ✇ BMJ Open

Australian research priorities for inherited retinal diseases: a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership

Por: Robertson · E. G. · Hetherington · K. · Prain · M. · Ma · A. · Ayton · L. N. · Jamieson · R. V. · Shepard · E. · Boyd · L. · Hall · J. · Boyd · R. · Karandrews · S. · Feller · H. · Simunovic · M. P. · Grigg · J. R. · Yamamoto · K. · Wakefield · C. E. · Gonzalez-Cordero · A. — Septiembre 30th 2025 at 09:49
Objectives

Inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) are a broad range of diseases associated with abnormalities/degeneration of retinal cells. We aimed to identify the top 10 Australian research priorities for IRDs to ultimately facilitate more meaningful and potentially cost-effective research.

Design

We conducted a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership that involved two Australian-wide surveys and online workshops.

Setting

Australia-wide.

Participants

Individuals aged 16 years or older were eligible to participate if they had an IRD, were caregivers of an individual with an IRD or were health professionals providing care to this community.

Outcome measure

In Survey 1, we gathered participants’ unanswered questions about IRDs. We grouped these into summary questions and undertook a literature review to verify if they were truly unanswered (ie, evidence uncertainties). In Survey 2, participants voted for the uncertainties that they considered a priority. Top-ranked uncertainties progressed for discussion and final prioritisation in two workshops.

Results

In Survey 1, we collected 223 questions from 69 participants. We grouped these into 42 summary questions and confirmed 41 as evidence uncertainties. In Survey 2, 151 participants voted, with the 16 uncertainties progressing to final prioritisation. The top 10 priorities, set by the 24 workshop participants, represented (1) treatment/cure; (2) symptoms and disease progression; (3) psychosocial well-being and (4) health service delivery. The #1 priority was for treatment to prevent, slow down or stop vision loss, followed by the #2 priority to address the psychological impact of having an IRD.

Conclusion

The top 10 research priorities highlight the need for IRD research that takes a whole-person, systems approach. Collaborations to progress priorities will accelerate the translation of research into real-world benefits.

☐ ☆ ✇ BMJ Open

Protocol for development of a checklist and guideline for transparent reporting of cluster analyses (TRoCA)

Por: Lisik · D. · Shah · S. A. · Basna · R. · Dinh · T. · Browne · R. P. · Andrews · J. L. · Wallace · M. · Ezugwu · A. · Marusic · A. · Tran · D. · Torres-Sospedra · J. · Dam · H.-C. · Fournier-Viger · P. · Hennig · C. · Timmerman · M. · Warrens · M. J. · Ceulemans · E. · Nwaru · B. I. · Herna — Agosto 21st 2025 at 10:00
Introduction

Cluster analysis, a machine learning-based and data-driven technique for identifying groups in data, has demonstrated its potential in a wide range of contexts. However, critical appraisal and reproducibility are often limited by insufficient reporting, ultimately hampering the interpretation and trust of key stakeholders. The present paper describes the protocol that will guide the development of a reporting guideline and checklist for studies incorporating cluster analyses—Transparent Reporting of Cluster Analyses.

Methods and analysis

Following the recommended steps for developing reporting guidelines outlined by the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research Network, the work will be divided into six stages. Stage 1: literature review to guide development of initial checklist. Stage 2: drafting of the initial checklist. Stage 3: internal revision of checklist. Stage 4: Delphi study in a global sample of researchers from varying fields (n=) to derive consensus regarding items in the checklist and piloting of the checklist. Stage 5: consensus meeting to consolidate checklist. Stage 6: production of statement paper and explanation and elaboration paper. Stage 7: dissemination via journals, conferences, social media and a dedicated web platform.

Ethics and dissemination

Due to local regulations, the planned study is exempt from the requirement of ethical review. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications. The checklist with explanations will also be made available freely on a dedicated web platform (troca-statement.org) and in a repository.

☐ ☆ ✇ BMJ Open

VR READY: a protocol for a non-randomised, single-arm, mixed methods, feasibility trial of a coproduced ViRtual REality intervention to AiD recoverY in people recently admitted to intensive care

Por: Drew · C. J. G. · Smallman · K. · Gill · S. · Greenstock · C. · Cullen · K. · Irving · A. · Twose · P. · Battle · C. · White · D. · Smalley · M. · Lynch · C. — Agosto 13th 2025 at 05:11
Introduction

Post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) describes a cluster of ongoing symptoms experienced by a large proportion of patients previously admitted to critical care. Despite a large rise in survival following critical care, interventions to support recovery and combat PICS are lacking. It has been suggested that the use of digital tools such as virtual reality (VR) may play a useful role in the development of recovery-supporting interventions. We engaged with people with lived experience of critical care admission to coproduce a VR intervention (ViRtual REality to AiD recoverY post ICU (VR READY)). Here, we present a protocol for the initial feasibility and acceptability testing of this intervention.

Methods and analysis

This is a single-arm, single-site, non-randomised feasibility trial of VR READY. Up to 25 participants recently admitted to critical care will be recruited to use the VR READY intervention for at least 5 min per day for a period of 14 days. Participants must have capacity to consent and be free from ongoing delirium in order to participate. Outcomes relating to sleep and well-being will be measured at baseline and at day 14 after intervention delivery. The primary outcome is feasibility, which will be assessed according to prespecified criteria. Participants will complete a qualitative interview to assess acceptability of the intervention, trial design and outcomes approximately 1 month after completing the intervention period. No formal statistical analysis of outcomes will be conducted, but these will be summarised descriptively. Interviews will be subjected to reflexive thematic analysis.

Ethics and dissemination

This study received a favourable ethical opinion by North-East York Research Ethics Committee (Ref 23/NE/0113) in June 2024. Study results will be disseminated through the peer review literature, ISRCTN registry and directly to participants, which will be facilitated by the study public and patient involvement steering group.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN88854487.

☐ ☆ ✇ BMJ Open

Core outcome set and measures of chest health in children and young people with cerebral palsy in the community setting: the CHESTI study protocol

Por: Knight Lozano · R. · Morris · C. · Shannon · H. · Bell · K. · Malyon · H. · Melluish · J. · Latour · J. · CHESTI-study steering group · Andrews · Crombie · Gibson · Grace · Goddard · Kolawole · Lowndes · McNamara · Pilbury · Rapson · Scivier · Sellers · Weighton · Winston — Agosto 12th 2025 at 03:13
Introduction

Poor chest health is the leading cause of early mortality in children with cerebral palsy (CP). It is also the most common reason to seek healthcare, accruing significant costs and reducing quality-of-life for children and families. Clinical trials examining chest health interventions in CP are characterised by inconsistent outcome measures, limiting the capacity for evidence synthesis to inform clinical application. The study aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) and related measurement instruments to assess, monitor and evaluate chest health in children with CP, both in research and routine clinical practice. The COS will reflect the views of children, young people, parent/carers, clinicians and researchers, emphasising under-represented groups in research and those at risk of poorer chest health.

Methods and analysis

A 3-phase methodology will be conducted in line with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative. (1) Candidate outcomes will be identified through a qualitative evidence synthesis and interviews with key stakeholders. Findings will be mapped to COMET-taxonomy, generating a list of candidate outcomes. (2) An international e-Delphi survey will invite stakeholders to rate the importance of each outcome, followed by a consensus meeting to ratify the COS. (3) A structured review, guided by health measurement taxonomy, will evaluate relevant instruments, with a final meeting to agree on recommended measures for each COS domain.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval was provided by the University of Plymouth Research Ethics Committee for the qualitative interview study (ID5116), e-Delphi study and consensus meeting (ID5636). Study findings will be published open access in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant national and international conferences.

Study registration

COMET registration: 2590 (https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2590)

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42024562735.

☐ ☆ ✇ BMJ Open

Canadian Adaptive Platform Trial of Treatments for COVID in Community Settings (CanTreatCOVID): protocol for a randomised controlled adaptive platform trial of treatments for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection in community settings

Por: Hosseini · B. · Condon · A. · da Costa · B. R. · Daley · P. · Greiver · M. · Jüni · P. · Lee · T. C. · McBrien · K. · McDonald · E. G. · Murthy · S. · Selby · P. · Andrew · M. · Aubrey-Bassler · K. · Barber · D. · Barrett · B. · Butler · C. C. · Crampton · N. · Dahrouge · S. · Damji · A. — Agosto 3rd 2025 at 14:44
Introduction

SARS-CoV-2 is now endemic and expected to remain a health threat, with new variants continuing to emerge and the potential for vaccines to become less effective. While effective vaccines and natural immunity have significantly reduced hospitalisations and the need for critical care, outpatient treatment options remain limited, and real-world evidence on their clinical and cost-effectiveness is lacking. In this paper, we present the design of the Canadian Adaptive Platform Trial of Treatments for COVID in Community Settings (CanTreatCOVID). By evaluating multiple treatment options in a pragmatic adaptive platform trial, this study will generate high-quality, generalisable evidence to inform clinical guidelines and healthcare decision-making.

Methods and analysis

CanTreatCOVID is an open-label, individually randomised, multicentre, national adaptive platform trial designed to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of therapeutics for non-hospitalised SARS-CoV-2 patients across Canada. Eligible participants must present with symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, confirmed by PCR or rapid antigen testing (RAT), within 5 days of symptom onset. The trial targets two groups that are expected to be at higher risk of more severe disease: (1) individuals aged 50 years and older and (2) those aged 18–49 years with one or more comorbidities. CanTreatCOVID uses numerous approaches to recruit participants to the study, including a multifaceted public communication strategy and outreach through primary care, outpatient clinics and emergency departments. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care, including supportive and symptom-based management, or an investigational therapeutic selected by the Canadian COVID-19 Outpatient Therapeutics Committee. The first therapeutic arm evaluates nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid), administered two times per day for 5 days. The second therapeutic arm investigates a combination antioxidant therapy (selenium 300 µg, zinc 40 mg, lycopene 45 mg and vitamin C 1.5 g), administered for 10 days. The primary outcome is all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation.

Ethics and dissemination

The CanTreatCOVID master protocol and subprotocols have been approved by Health Canada and local research ethics boards in the participating provinces across Canada. The results of the study will be disseminated to policy-makers, presented at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals to ensure that findings are accessible to the broader scientific and medical communities. This study was approved by the Unity Health Toronto Research Ethics Board (#22-179) and Clinical Trials Ontario (Project ID 4133).

Trial registration number

NCT05614349

☐ ☆ ✇ BMJ Open

Cohort profile: Mother and Infant Metabolome and Microbiome (MIMM) study, a prospective cohort study of mothers and infants in Boston, Massachusetts

Por: Andrews · C. · Vodapally · S. · Foster · L. P. · Lawandy · I. · Murphy · M. · Castellanos · M. · Moncada · D. · Mourao · M. L. · Bhushan · B. · Berger · P. K. · Fichorova · R. · Monthe-Dreze · C. · Freedman · S. D. · Angelidou · A. · Martin · C. R. · Sen · S. — Junio 18th 2025 at 10:05
Purpose

Breastfeeding is beneficial to the health of both the mother and infant. Despite recommendations to breastfeed by organisations including the WHO and the American Academy of Pediatrics, rates of breastfeeding remain below public health goals. The Mother and Infant Metabolome and Microbiome (MIMM) study is a prospective cohort study of healthy mother-term infant dyads designed to comprehensively assess the perinatal, maternal, neonatal and infant factors that are associated with breastfeeding outcomes and human milk composition.

Participants

MIMM participants were recruited from two medical centres in Boston, Massachusetts, from 2019 to 2023 and are followed for 2 years. Dyads were included if the mother delivered a singleton infant at ≥37 weeks’ gestation, was discharged home 2 and infant gestational age was 39.3 weeks. Approximately 43% of infants were born via caesarean delivery, and 45.5% were female.

Findings to date

MIMM study procedures include longitudinal (1) collections of maternal blood, vaginal swab, stool and milk and infant blood and stool samples and (2) assessments of breastfeeding status, child neurodevelopment and growth and maternal health at birth, 6 weeks and 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. Data collection through 18 months is complete. The overall objective of the MIMM study is to identify potential targets to improve breastfeeding outcomes, human milk composition and ultimately, maternal and child health. Preliminary analyses, reported in conference presentations (with ongoing analyses and results manuscripts pending), have found that (1) mothers with higher levels of stress were less likely to be exclusively breastfeeding their infants at 6 weeks; (2) higher breastfeeding intensity was associated with greater postpartum weight loss at 6 weeks; (3) feeding type was a more relevant predictor of feeding frequency and volume compared with feeding mode; (4) infants who received exclusive human milk had higher food enjoyment compared with those who received any formula; and (5) infants of mothers with obesity had higher average feeding volume per feed.

Future plans

Data collection for the final 24-month visit is expected to be completed by August 2025. We expect that all sample assays will be completed by December 2025. Findings will continue to be submitted for presentation at scientific conferences, and we expect to publish the first findings from this cohort in manuscript format in 2025.

❌