No abstract

In an effort to improve the quality of statistics in the clinical urology literature, statisticians at European Urology, The Journal of Urology, Urology and BJUI came together to develop a set of guidelines to address common errors of statistical analysis, reporting and interpretation. Authors should "break any of the guidelines if it makes scientific sense to do so" but would need to provide a clear justification. Adoption of the guidelines will in our view not only increase the quality of published papers in our journals but improve statistical knowledge in our field in general.It is widely acknowledged that the quality of statistics in the clinical research literature is poor. This is true for urology just as it is for other medical specialties. In 2005, Scales et al. published a systematic evaluation of the statistics in papers appearing in a single month in one of the four leading urology medical journals: European Urology,

ObjectivesTo examine the acceptability and feasibility of narrative text messages with or without financial incentives to support weight loss for men.DesignIndividually randomised three-arm feasibility trial with 12 months’ follow-up.SettingTwo sites in Scotland with high levels of disadvantage according to Scottish Index for Multiple Deprivation (SIMD).ParticipantsMen with obesity (n=105) recruited through community outreach and general practitioner registers.InterventionsParticipants randomised to: (A) narrative text messages plus financial incentive for 12 months (short message service (SMS)+I), (B) narrative text messages for 12 months (SMS only), or (C) waiting list control.OutcomesAcceptability and feasibility of recruitment, retention, intervention components and trial procedures assessed by analysing quantitative and qualitative data at 3, 6 and 12 months.Results105 men were recruited, 60% from more disadvantaged areas (SIMD quintiles 1 or 2). Retention at 12 months was 74%. Fewer SMS+I participants (64%) completed 12-month assessments compared with SMS only (79%) and control (83%). Narrative texts were acceptable to many men, but some reported negative reactions. No evidence emerged that level of disadvantage was related to acceptability of narrative texts. Eleven SMS+I participants (31%) successfully met or partially met weight loss targets. The cost of the incentive per participant was £81.94 (95% CI £34.59 to £129.30). Incentives were acceptable, but improving health was reported as the key motivator for weight loss. All groups lost weight (SMS+I: −2.51 kg (SD=4.94); SMS only: −1.29 kg (SD=5.03); control: −0.86 kg (SD=5.64) at 12 months).ConclusionsThis three-arm weight management feasibility trial recruited and retained men from across the socioeconomic spectrum, with the majority from areas of disadvantage, was broadly acceptable to most participants and feasible to deliver.Trial registration numberNCT03040518.

This is the author manuscript accepted for publication and has undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as

Conservative interventions for treating urinary incontinence in women: an Overview of Cochrane systematic reviews.