SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “pancreatic fluid collections”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

386 records · Page 22Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Validation of a Turkish Translation of the Stress in Emergency Healthcare Professionals: The Stress Factors and Manifestations Scale.

AIM: The primary duties of emergency healthcare professionals (EHPs) are to provide emergency patient care to acutely ill and injured individuals. Due to the nature of their work, EHPs operate under constant stress, often requiring rapid decision-making, swift action, and the delivery of necessary medical care in life-or-death situations, sometimes under inadequately safe conditions. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine the validity and reliability of the Emergency Healthcare Professional Stress Factors and Symptoms (SEHP:SFMS) Scale in Turkish for identifying stress factors and symptoms in emergency medical care professionals providing emergency patient care services. DESIGN: A methodological study design was used in this study. METHODS: The study was conducted with the participation of 211 EHPs from employees working in emergency care institutions affiliated with the Muğla Provincial Health Directorate between November 2023 and June 2024. Data were collected via a face-to-face survey. Data were analysed using Lawshe content validity ratio, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin coefficient, Bartlett test, exploratory factor analysis, principal component analysis, Varimax factor rotation method, confirmatory factor analysis, Cronbach's α internal consistency coefficient, convergent validity, discriminant validity, test-retest, and Spearman correlation coefficient tests. RESULTS: The linguistic translation and cultural adaptation of the SEHP:SFMS showed strong performance. The scope validity index of the scale is 0.83. The item-total correlation values of the scale were found to be between 0.486 and 0.794, and the factor loadings were between 0.474 and 0.816. Confirmatory factor analysis fit indices: χ2 = 248.727; df = 101; n = 211; p = 0.000; χ2/df = 2.463; RMSEA = 0.083; CFI = 0.914, SRMR = 0.052, which was found to be compatible and acceptable with the proposed 3-factor model. The Cronbach's α reliability coefficient of the scale was 0.931, and the total variance was 61.97%. CONCLUSIONS: SEHP:SFMS is a valid and reliable tool to assess stress factors and symptoms of Turkish emergency healthcare professionals. Its use improves the quality of emergency care. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: These study findings have been used to create a tool with Turkish validity and reliability that allows for the examination of stress factors among healthcare professionals working in emergency and critical services. Identifying and reducing stress factors among healthcare professionals is crucial for the delivery of quality healthcare services. It can also be used to develop targeted interventions and ongoing strategies to facilitate improved clinical supervision and mentoring. IMPLICATION FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Nurses in emergency departments, which are among the most stressful, dynamic, intense, life-saving, and critical environments in healthcare institutions, and where life-saving treatment is administered, are at high risk of experiencing psychological trauma. Trauma experienced in the work environment is a significant problem for nursing. The consequences of trauma negatively affect nurses and institutions. Studies show that post-traumatic stress, anxiety, depression, and burnout are commonly observed in emergency department nurses. In this sense, understanding the stress and stress factors experienced by nurses can guide future interventions. The results of this study are considered important in making visible the stress and stress factors experienced by nurses in the emergency department, and also in guiding managers and nurses working in this field in terms of preventive and protective measures.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Assessment and CommuniCation ExcelLEnce foR sAfe paTient outcomEs (ACCELERATE): A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial evaluating the effectiveness of a nurse-led assessment and handover communication intervention on patient adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Patients continue to experience harm from undetected deterioration, falls and pressure injuries. We aimed to implement and evaluate an organisational, ward-level nurse-led assessment and communication intervention to proactively reduce patient adverse events. METHODS: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised Trial over 12-months was conducted at three metropolitan hospitals. Our intervention comprised a comprehensive, systematic patient assessment at shift commencement; a structured patient-centred bedside nurse-to-nurse clinical handover; and multidisciplinary communication consisting of nurse participation in medical ward rounds. Evidence-based implementation strategies informed intervention delivery to nine clusters (20-35 bed-wards with ≥70% permanent nurses) over three sequential 14-week steps. Routinely collected patient-level data were used to measure intervention effect. The primary outcome was a composite measure of medical emergency team calls, unplanned intensive care unit admissions, in-hospital falls; and stage 2-4 pressure injuries. Secondary outcomes were: individual measures of the primary outcome; nurse-reported perceptions of safety culture; organisational readiness to change; barriers to physical assessment; staff engagement; and patient-reported experience measures of safety and overall hospital experience. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, hospital, pre/post intervention, and Trial step (fortnight), with random effects for ward and patient. RESULTS: There were 13,753 eligible admissions. No change was observed in the primary composite outcome measure (odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.99 [0.77, 1.28]; p = 0.95). There was no significant difference in medical emergency team calls (OR [95% CI]: 1.02 [0.75, 1.39]; p = 0.91); unplanned intensive care unit admissions (OR [95% CI]: 1.35 [0.57, 3.20]; p = 0.50) and falls (OR [95% CI]: 1.53 [0.96, 2.45]; p = 0.07). However, stage 2-4 pressure injuries significantly decreased by 41% (OR [95% CI]: 0.59 [0.38, 0.93]; p = 0.02); a significant absolute effect improvement of 0.8% ([95% CI: 0.3%-1.3%], p < 0.01). There were statistically significant improvements in nurses' overall perceptions of Safety Attitudes (Pre: 74.6, Post: 79.7; p = 0.02), and the Organisational Readiness to Change subscales of, leader culture (Pre: 3.73, Post 3.91; p = 0.02), leadership behaviour (Pre: 3.85, Post: 4.11; p = 0.03), and general resources (Pre: 3.06, Post: 3.30; p = 0.03). A statistically significant decrease in Barriers to Physical Assessment (Pre: 2.48, Post: 2.24; p <0.001) and in six of seven sub-scales was observed. Patients' overall Measure of Safety remained high, but unchanged (Pre: 3.94 Post: 3.92; p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: The ACCELERATE Trial demonstrated that nurse-driven initiatives, emphasising structured physical assessments by nurses, patient-centred clinical handovers, and multidisciplinary communication, significantly: reduced pressure injuries; decreased nurses' perceived barriers to performing physical assessments; and improved leadership behaviour, communication, and ward safety culture perceptions. Results highlight the transformative potential of this approach, which now warrants testing at scale for broader implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ID: ACTRN12621000265875.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Methods for defining equity-stratifying variables: a systematic review of validation studies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Disease burden is often disproportionally higher among those who are socially disadvantaged by factors defined in the PROGRESS-Plus framework (ie, Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, and Social capital, with "Plus" covering features like age and disability). The accuracy and applicability of case definitions to identify these variables from administrative and clinical health data are unknown. We conducted a systematic review to explore how equity-stratifying variables, as categorized by the PROGRESS-Plus framework, have been defined and validated in epidemiologic studies using administrative health, population-level, or electronic health record (EHR) data. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from the inception of the databases to 2024 for validation studies of equity-stratifying variables in adults using administrative health datasets, health registries, or EHR data. Titles and abstracts, followed by relevant full-text articles, were screened in duplicate by two reviewers for eligibility. The data sources utilized, algorithms employed, and their associated performance measures were extracted and synthesized from included studies. Given substantial heterogeneity in study design, equity-stratifying variable definition, and performance metrics, meta-analysis was not possible. RESULTS: Of the 9099 unique citations screened, 188 full texts were reviewed and 116 were included in this review. Most studies were published between 2019 and 2024 (n = 64, 55%) and were validation studies of race/ethnicity definitions that used race/ethnicity codes or surname list algorithms (n = 66, 57%). No studies examined religion. Regarding the reported performance measure estimates, the race/ethnicity/culture/language equity-stratifying variables category had the largest variability across sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and Cohen's Kappa. Occupation validation studies had the lowest variation in sensitivity and PPV. CONCLUSION: Despite an increasing number of publications reporting on the validation of equity-stratifying variables relevant to the PROGRESS-Plus framework, performance measures varied widely across studies. The significant heterogeneity in equity-stratifying variable definitions and methods used to validate them support the need for further rigorous validation of equity-stratifying variables in administrative and clinical health data. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Disease burden is often higher in people who experience financial hardships, lower level of education, discrimination due to race/ethnicity, and unstable housing. These social factors can be considered health equity factors and are important for understanding health inequalities. Health researchers often use large datasets, such as hospital or electronic health records (EHRs), to study these health equity factors. However, it is not clear how accurately these data sources capture information about people's social circumstances and how these factors are defined. In this study, we reviewed existing research to understand how health equity factors have been defined across health data sources and how accurate they are at measuring aspects of health equity and social disadvantage. Of the more than 9000 studies we identified, we included 116 that met our criteria for this systematic review. Most included studies focused on identifying race and ethnicity, often using codes or surname-based methods. We found that the accuracy of these methods varied widely across studies, meaning results may not always be reliable or comparable. Overall, our findings show that there are inconsistencies in how social factors are defined and measured in health data. This makes it difficult to fully understand and address health inequalities using routinely collected health data. More work is needed to develop and validate better quality and more consistent methods for capturing these important social factors.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

High-dose radiotherapy in patients with high-risk prostate cancers treated with long-term androgen deprivation therapy (GETUG AFU 18): a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients with high-risk prostate cancer, the role of dose-escalated radiotherapy in combination with long-term androgen deprivation treatment (ADT) is controversial, without any demonstrated benefit on cancer-specific or overall survival. We aimed to evaluate the effect of a 10 Gy dose increase, from 70 Gy to 80 Gy, on progression-free survival in men with high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients with high-risk prostate cancer, defined as prostate-specific antigen of 20 ng/mL or more, Gleason score of at least 8, or clinical stage T3-T4, from 25 centres in France. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by minimisation, stratified by centre and previous pelvic lymph node dissection, to receive prostate-targeted dose-escalated external beam radiotherapy (80 Gy; 2 Gy per fraction for 8 weeks) or standard-dose external beam radiotherapy (70 Gy; 2 Gy per fraction for 7 weeks), combined with long-term ADT. Neither the participants nor the investigators were masked to the allocated treatment. The primary endpoint was 5-year progression-free survival defined as the time from randomisation to first biochemical (defined as prostate-specific antigen >nadir plus 2 ng/mL) or clinical (ie, local, regional, or metastatic) disease progression, analysed in the intention-to-treat population, with 197 events required. 5-year progression-free survival was the prespecified endpoint, and 10-year progression-free survival was additionally reported (post hoc) in view of the low number of events at 5 years. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00967863, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between April 6, 2009, and Jan 24, 2013, 505 patients with high-risk prostate cancer were enrolled; 250 were assigned to receive dose-escalated radiotherapy (80 Gy) and 255 to receive standard dose radiotherapy (70 Gy). All participants were male and ethnicity data were not collected. At a median follow-up of 9·5 years (IQR 8·5-10·3), 5-year progression-free survival was 91·4% (95% CI 87·0-94·4) in the dose-escalation group versus 88·1% (83·2-91·6) in the control group, and 10-year progression-free survival was 83·6% (77·8-88·0) versus 72·2% (65·3-78·0; stratified HR 0·56, 95% CI 0·40-0·78, p<0·0001). Grade 3 or worse adverse events assessed at 6 months (acute toxicity) were observed in 60 (24%) of patients in the dose-escalation group and 62 (25%) in the control group. The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events were sexual disorders (28 [11%] in the dose-escalation group vs 20 [8%] in the control group) and bladder or urethra disorders (12 [5%] vs 19 [8%]). Adverse events assessed at 5 years (late toxicity) occurred in 118 (70%) of 168 in the dose-escalation group and 122 (73%) of 168 in the control group; grade 3 or worse late toxicities occurred in 19 (8%) participants in the dose-escalated radiotherapy group versus 17 (7%) participants in the control group. The most common late grade 3 adverse event was bladder or urethra disorders (seven [4%] vs three [2%], respectively). Serious adverse events occurred in nine (4%) patients in the dose escalation group and nine (4%) in the control group; none were considered to be treatment related. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: For patients with high-risk prostate cancer, radiotherapy at a total dose of 80 Gy, in combination with long-term ADT, improved progression-free survival and could be a potential option in this situation. However, given the low number of events, further research is needed to consolidate and confirm the benefit in dose-escalation in prostate cancer-specific survival and overall survival. FUNDING: French National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca.

Aged↗

PubMed2026

Adolescent health across Asia Pacific, 2000-23: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2023.

BACKGROUND: The Asia Pacific region is home to more than half of the world's 1·93 billion adolescents (aged 10-24 years). Addressing adolescent health in this region is of global importance, but to date a systematic analysis of key contributors to disease in adolescents has not been done, which is a barrier to responsive action. This systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2023 aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of adolescent health across the Asia Pacific region, at both the subregional and national levels, encompassing burden of disease, mortality, and prevalence of adolescent risk factors. METHODS: As part of GBD 2023, we obtained estimates for cause-specific mortality, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and risk factor prevalence by sex for adolescents aged 10-24 years and 5-year age groups (10-14 years, 15-19 years, and 20-24 years) across 44 countries and territories (hereafter referred to collectively as Asia Pacific), grouped by seven UN subregions, from 2000 to 2023. We extracted GBD 2023 population counts and estimates of number and rate (per 100 000 population) for mortality and disease burden (DALYs). Risk prevalence estimates were obtained directly from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, and binge drinking estimates were sourced from WHO. Estimates are reported with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) where possible. UIs were estimated by running 250 draws of the posterior distribution, ordering the draws, and selecting the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles for each metric. FINDINGS: In 2023, in adolescents across Asia Pacific, there were 637 496 deaths and a total disease burden of 115·8 million DALYs, representing 34·1% of global adolescent deaths and 40·6% of the global adolescent burden of disease. Non-communicable diseases (NCDs; particularly mental disorders) were the leading causes of disease burden and mortality (64·8% of DALYs and 43·9% of deaths). Unintentional and transport injuries were also leading causes of death (14·7% of deaths due to transport injury and 13·3% of deaths due to unintentional injury) and leading causes of disease burden particularly among males in south-eastern Asia. In Melanesia, Micronesia, and some parts of south-eastern Asia (Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, the Philippines, and Timor-Leste), respiratory infections and tuberculosis remained important contributors. Southern Asia had the largest reduction (1·5% per year) in all-cause DALYs over the study period, and Australia and New Zealand (0·2% per year) had the smallest, with females in Australia and New Zealand showing a slight increase contrary to regional trends. Eastern Asia had the largest reduction (2·8% per year) in all-cause mortality rate and Melanesia (0·8% per year) the smallest. Risk factors generally had between-subregion and within-subregion variation; however, some regional trends stood out, with overweight and obesity increasing in all countries across the region, and binge drinking increasing in more countries than not. In 2023, prevalence of smoking in males exceeded that in females in every country, from 40% difference in Timor-Leste to less than 1% difference in Australia. Anaemia prevalence is decreasing in all countries, but female prevalence was higher and reducing at a slower rate than in males. Bullying prevalence was slightly higher in Polynesia, Micronesia, and Melanesia combined, Australia and New Zealand, and eastern Asia compared with southern and south-eastern Asian subregions. INTERPRETATION: Several patterns were consistent across the region: the dominance of mental disorders and NCDs, the universal rise in overweight and obesity (particularly high in Oceanic countries but increasing rapidly in south and south-eastern Asia), and persistent sex-specific challenges across subregions: unintentional injuries and smoking in males, and anaemia in females. Actions to tackle shared risk factors (while accounting for context-specific local health profiles, workforce deficits, cultural factors, and health system capacity) should not be forgone due to local variation. Future research could focus on subnational variation, intersecting inequalities, and multi-sectoral interventions targeting shared risk factors. Priority actions should include regional investment in adolescent mental health services and obesity prevention, targeted injury reduction strategies for high-risk populations, and sex-specific approaches to smoking cessation and anaemia reduction, delivered through local health systems with the capacity and cultural responsiveness to meet local needs. FUNDING: Gates Foundation and Australian Government.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Long-term hormone therapy for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Hormone therapy is widely provided to control menopausal symptoms and has been used for the management and prevention of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and dementia in older women. This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term effects of prolonged use (at least one year) of hormone therapy on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, cancer, gallbladder disease, fractures and cognition in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. SEARCH METHODS: We used the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, three other databases and two trial registers, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify the studies included in the review. The latest search date was 26 September 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind trials in which peri- or postmenopausal women took hormone therapy or placebo for at least one year. We included various oestrogen formulations, with or without progestogens. We focused on studies assessing hormone therapy's effects on long-term clinical outcomes, including death, coronary events and cancer. Hormone therapy's efficacy in managing menopausal symptoms was beyond the scope of this review, and is assessed in other Cochrane reviews. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 studies - with two newly added in this update - involving 45,660 participants. We derived nearly 70% of the data from two well-conducted studies: the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS 1998) and the large, multi-component Women's Health Initiative research programme, which included two hormone therapy arms (WHI 1998). Across all the studies, most participants were postmenopausal American women with one or more comorbidities. The mean participant age in most studies was over 60 years. Only one included study focused on perimenopausal women. We present full results for all included studies with available data in the main review. The results presented below are drawn from WHI 1998, in which the combined hormone therapy arm and the oestrogen-only arm were run concurrently, with women assigned to the appropriate trial based on their uterus status. One study with 16,608 postmenopausal women with an intact uterus compared combined continuous hormone therapy (conjugated equine oestrogen and medroxyprogesterone acetate) to placebo, and measured outcomes at an average of 5.6 years of follow-up. Based on this study, combined continuous hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to the risk of a coronary event (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase the risk of stroke (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.09; low-certainty evidence) and venous thromboembolism (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.55 to 6.64; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, combined continuous hormone therapy probably increases the risk of breast cancer (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.56; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably makes little to no difference to the risk of lung cancer (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase gallbladder disease requiring surgery (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.06; 14,203 participants; low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the risk of all clinical fractures (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.86; moderate-certainty evidence). One study including 10,739 postmenopausal women who had undergone a hysterectomy compared oestrogen-only (conjugated equine oestrogen) hormone therapy to placebo, and measured outcomes at an average of seven years' follow-up. Based on this study, oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to the risk of coronary events (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13), venous thromboembolism (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.74) and breast cancer (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.01), all with moderate-certainty evidence. It may make little to no difference to the risk of lung cancer (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.48; low-certainty evidence). Oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably increases the risk of stroke (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.67) and gallbladder disease requiring surgery (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.24), and probably reduces the risk of all clinical fractures (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.80), all with moderate-certainty evidence. We judged most included studies to have a low risk of bias for most domains. The overall certainty of evidence for the main comparisons was moderate. The main limitation was that only about 30% of women were 50 to 59 years old at baseline, the age group most likely to consider hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up of women using hormone therapy suggests that the risk profiles vary between combined hormone therapy and oestrogen-only therapy. Oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to coronary events, and probably increases the risk of stroke and gallbladder disease. It probably makes little to no difference in the risk of breast cancer, and probably reduces the risk of all fractures. Combined hormone therapy may increase the risk of thromboembolism and probably increases the risk of breast cancer. These results should be interpreted with caution as they are based on one study using oral hormone therapy, which may not represent the risks of the hormone therapy currently used in clinical practice.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for neuroprotection of the fetus.

BACKGROUND: Magnesium sulphate is a common therapy in perinatal care. Its benefits when given to women at risk of preterm birth for fetal neuroprotection (prevention of cerebral palsy for children) were shown in a 2009 Cochrane review. Internationally, use of magnesium sulphate for preterm cerebral palsy prevention is now recommended practice. As new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longer-term follow-up of prior RCTs have since been conducted, this review updates the previously published version. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of magnesium sulphate as a fetal neuroprotective agent when given to women considered to be at risk of preterm birth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 17 March 2023, as well as reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and cluster-RCTs of women at risk of preterm birth that assessed prenatal magnesium sulphate for fetal neuroprotection compared with placebo or no treatment. All methods of administration (intravenous, intramuscular, and oral) were eligible. We did not include studies where magnesium sulphate was used with the primary aim of preterm labour tocolysis, or the prevention and/or treatment of eclampsia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed RCTs for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and trustworthiness. Dichotomous data were presented as summary risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and continuous data were presented as mean differences with 95% CI. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (5917 women and their 6759 fetuses alive at randomisation). All RCTs were conducted in high-income countries. The RCTs compared magnesium sulphate with placebo in women at risk of preterm birth at less than 34 weeks' gestation; however, treatment regimens and inclusion/exclusion criteria varied. Though the RCTs were at an overall low risk of bias, the certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low, due to concerns regarding study limitations, imprecision, and inconsistency. Primary outcomes for infants/children: Up to two years' corrected age, magnesium sulphate compared with placebo reduced cerebral palsy (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.89; 6 RCTs, 6107 children; number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 60, 95% CI 41 to 158) and death or cerebral palsy (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; 6 RCTs, 6481 children; NNTB 56, 95% CI 32 to 363) (both high-certainty evidence). Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in death (fetal, neonatal, or later) (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.13; 6 RCTs, 6759 children); major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.44; 1 RCT, 987 children); or death or major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 3 RCTs, 4279 children) (all moderate-certainty evidence). At early school age, magnesium sulphate may have resulted in little to no difference in death (fetal, neonatal, or later) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.02; 2 RCTs, 1758 children); cerebral palsy (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.41; 2 RCTs, 1038 children); death or cerebral palsy (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.20; 1 RCT, 503 children); and death or major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 503 children) (all low-certainty evidence). Magnesium sulphate may also have resulted in little to no difference in major neurodevelopmental disability, but the evidence is very uncertain (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.62; 2 RCTs, 940 children; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes for infants/children: Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in severe intraventricular haemorrhage (grade 3 or 4) (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.04; 6 RCTs, 6542 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may have resulted in little to no difference in chronic lung disease/bronchopulmonary dysplasia (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; 5 RCTs, 6689 infants; low-certainty evidence). Primary outcomes for women: Magnesium sulphate may have resulted in little or no difference in severe maternal outcomes potentially related to treatment (death, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.92; 4 RCTs, 5300 women; low-certainty evidence). However, magnesium sulphate probably increased maternal adverse effects severe enough to stop treatment (average RR 3.21, 95% CI 1.88 to 5.48; 3 RCTs, 4736 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes for women: Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in caesarean section (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.02; 5 RCTs, 5861 women) and postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.09; 2 RCTs, 2495 women) (both moderate-certainty evidence). Breastfeeding at hospital discharge and women's views of treatment were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The currently available evidence indicates that magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for neuroprotection of the fetus, compared with placebo, reduces cerebral palsy, and death or cerebral palsy, in children up to two years' corrected age. Magnesium sulphate may result in little to no difference in outcomes in children at school age. While magnesium sulphate may result in little to no difference in severe maternal outcomes (death, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest), it probably increases maternal adverse effects severe enough to stop treatment. Further research is needed on the longer-term benefits and harms for children, into adolescence and adulthood. Additional studies to determine variation in effects by characteristics of women treated and magnesium sulphate regimens used, along with the generalisability of findings to low- and middle-income countries, should be considered.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging. Identifying effective recruitment strategies would benefit health research: poor recruitment leads to underpowered trials, reducing the reliability of findings and increasing the risk of wasted resources, ethical concerns, and trial failure. Evidence to inform recruitment strategies is increasingly generated through Studies Within A Trial (SWATs), which are methodological studies embedded within host RCTs. This is an update of a review last published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to quantify the effects of strategies to improve recruitment of participants to RCTs. Secondary: to evaluate recruitment strategies' cost-effectiveness and impact on retention, and the equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) characteristics of recruited participants. SEARCH METHODS: We used MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases to identify the studies included in the review. We also sought unpublished recruitment SWATs through social media and targeted email dissemination to trial methodology networks. The latest search date was 16 February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised SWATs evaluating trial recruitment strategies embedded in healthcare and non-healthcare trials. We excluded quasi-randomised, hypothetical, questionnaire-only, retention-only, or clinician incentive studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcome: proportion of eligible participants or centres recruited. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: cost-effectiveness, retention rates, and EDI characteristics of included participants. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis for strategies evaluated in at least two studies; otherwise, we synthesised results narratively. We reported effects as risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and assessed between-trial heterogeneity. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for the primary outcome. We expressed cost-effectiveness as the incremental cost per additional participant recruited in pounds sterling (GBP). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 91 eligible studies (53 new to this update), providing 94 comparisons and involving at least 176,747 participants. Eighty-one studies involved strategies aimed at trial participants, while 10 evaluated strategies aimed at recruiters. All were healthcare studies. We found 65 recruitment strategies; 49 were evaluated in a single study. Only five strategies were supported by high-certainty evidence according to GRADE criteria, and we focus on these strategies in the summary below. Open-label trials versus blinded, placebo trials. Open-label trials recruited more participants than blinded trials (RD 10%, 95% CI 8% to 12%; 3 studies, 9004 participants), corresponding to approximately 10 additional participants per 100 approached. The studies involved mostly women in the UK and Estonia. No cost or retention data were reported. Telephone reminder versus no telephone reminder. Telephone reminders to people who did not respond to an initial postal invitation boosted recruitment by 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%; 2 studies, 1450 participants), in trials with low underlying recruitment (we are less certain for trials with over 10% recruitment). The studies involved people with a mean age of 58 years in Canada and Norway. No cost or retention data were reported. Recruitment primer letter versus no letter. Pre-recruitment letters and leaflets designed to encourage participation made little or no difference to recruitment (absolute improvement 1%, 95% CI -1% to 2%; 2 studies, 5376 participants), and were associated with increased costs compared to not sending a primer (incremental cost: GBP 2.08). The studies involved mostly older white people in the UK and Ireland. Multimedia information via a digital link/QR code plus paper participant information leaflet (PIL) versus paper PIL alone. This made little or no difference to recruitment (absolute improvement 0%, 95% CI -1% to 1%; 7 studies, 11,612 participants) and retention (absolute improvement 0%, 95% CI -2% to 3%; 5 studies, 7403 participants), and increased costs compared to not including multimedia information (incremental cost: GBP 0.78). The studies involved people in the UK. Optimised, user-tested PIL versus standard PIL. Optimising participant information leaflets (e.g. through user-testing the leaflet with the target population to shape its content, format, and appearance) made little or no difference to recruitment: absolute improvement was 0% (95% CI 0% to 1%; 6 studies, 27,805 participants). The studies involved people in the UK. Only one study reported EDI data; participants were mostly older women. No cost or retention data were reported. We had moderate-certainty evidence for 13 other strategies; confidence was often reduced because the results came from single studies. Seven strategies involved changes to how potential participants received information; four involved changes to trial conduct; one targeted the recruiter or recruitment site; and one tested non-monetary incentives. We had much less confidence in the other 47 comparisons because the studies had design flaws, were single studies, or had very uncertain results. Costs were reported in only 17 of 91 studies. Strategy impact on retention was reported in 15 studies. All but one study (99%) were from high-income countries. The most reported demographics were age (49 studies), sex (32 studies), gender (27 studies), and education level (16 studies). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on strategies to improve trial recruitment remains broad but lacks depth. Of 65 strategies evaluated, only five were supported by high-certainty evidence. Open-label trial designs and telephone reminders to non-responders increased recruitment, while optimised participant information leaflets, recruitment primer letters, and multimedia information provided alongside a paper participant information leaflet had little or no effect. Reporting of participant characteristics was poor, limiting assessment of equity, diversity, and inclusion across most studies. Evidence is heavily skewed toward high-income countries. Future research must prioritise evaluations in low-to-middle-income settings and consistently report cost, retention, and EDI outcomes. We strongly urge the methodology research community to strengthen the evidence base by prioritising replications of existing strategies over the development and testing of new ones. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (Advanced Fellowship, Adwoa Parker, reference:NIHR302256). Health Research Board, Republic of Ireland, Evidence Synthesis Ireland (grant ESI-2021-001) REGISTRATION: This review updates an earlier Cochrane review, which was first published in 2002 and subsequently updated in 2007, 2010, and 2018. Previous versions of the review and their protocols are available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub2 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub3 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub4 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub5 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub6.

Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic↗