Background The management of complex orthopedic infections usually includes a prolonged course of intravenous antibiotic agents. We investigated whether oral antibiotic therapy is noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy for this indication. Methods We enrolled adults who were being treated for bone or joint infection at 26 U.K. centers. Within 7 days after surgery (or, if the infection was being managed without surgery, within 7 days after the start of antibiotic treatment), participants were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous or oral antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on oral antibiotics were permitted in both groups. The primary end point was definitive treatment failure within 1 year after randomization. In the analysis of the risk of the primary end point, the noninferiority margin was 7.5 percentage points. Results Among the 1054 participants (527 in each group), end-point data were available for 1015 (96.3%). Treatment failure occurred in 74 of 506 participants (14.6%) in the intravenous group and 67 of 509 participants (13.2%) in the oral group. Missing end-point data (39 participants, 3.7%) were imputed. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a difference in the risk of definitive treatment failure (oral group vs. intravenous group) of −1.4 percentage points (90% confidence interval [CI], −4.9 to 2.2; 95% CI, −5.6 to 2.9), indicating noninferiority. Complete-case, per-protocol, and sensitivity analyses supported this result. The between-group difference in the incidence of serious adverse events was not significant (146 of 527 participants [27.7%] in the intravenous group and 138 of 527 [26.2%] in the oral group; P = 0.58). Catheter complications, analyzed as a secondary end point, were more common in the intravenous group (9.4% vs. 1.0%). Conclusions Oral antibiotic therapy was noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy when used during the first 6 weeks for complex orthopedic infection, as assessed by treatment failure at 1 year. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; OVIVA Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN91566927.)

SummaryBackgroundArthroscopic sub-acromial decompression (decompressing the sub-acromial space by removing bone spurs and soft tissue arthroscopically) is a common surgery for subacromial shoulder pain, but its effectiveness is uncertain. We did a study to assess its effectiveness and to investigate the mechanism for surgical decompression.MethodsWe did a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group trial at 32 hospitals in the UK with 51 surgeons. Participants were patients who had subacromial pain for at least 3 months with intact rotator cuff tendons, were eligible for arthroscopic surgery, and had previously completed a non-operative management programme that included exercise therapy and at least one steroid injection. Exclusion criteria included a full-thickness torn rotator cuff. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to arthroscopic subacromial decompression, investigational arthroscopy only, or no treatment (attendance of one reassessment appointment with a specialist shoulder clinician 3 months after study entry, but no intervention). Arthroscopy only was a placebo as the essential surgical element (bone and soft tissue removal) was omitted. We did the randomisation with a computer-generated minimisation system. In the surgical intervention groups, patients were not told which type of surgery they were receiving (to ensure masking). Patients were followed up at 6 months and 1 year after randomisation; surgeons coordinated their waiting lists to schedule surgeries as close as possible to randomisation. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (0 [worst] to 48 [best]) at 6 months, analysed by intention to treat. The sample size calculation was based upon a target difference of 4·5 points (SD 9·0). This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01623011.FindingsBetween Sept 14, 2012, and June 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 313 patients to treatment groups (106 to decompression surgery, 103 to arthroscopy only, and 104 to no treatment). 24 [23%], 43 [42%], and 12 [12%] of the decompression, arthroscopy only, and no treatment groups, respectively, did not receive their assigned treatment by 6 months. At 6 months, data for the Oxford Shoulder Score were available for 90 patients assigned to decompression, 94 to arthroscopy, and 90 to no treatment. Mean Oxford Shoulder Score did not differ between the two surgical groups at 6 months (decompression mean 32·7 points [SD 11·6] vs arthroscopy mean 34·2 points [9·2]; mean difference −1·3 points (95% CI −3·9 to 1·3, p=0·3141). Both surgical groups showed a small benefit over no treatment (mean 29·4 points [SD 11·9], mean difference vs decompression 2·8 points [95% CI 0·5–5·2], p=0·0186; mean difference vs arthroscopy 4·2 [1·8–6·6], p=0·0014) but these differences were not clinically important. There were six study-related complications that were all frozen shoulders (in two patients in each group).InterpretationSurgical groups had better outcomes for shoulder pain and function compared with no treat...

Objective To compare arthroscopic hip surgery with physiotherapy and activity modification for improving patient reported outcome measures in patients with symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Design Two group parallel, assessor blinded, pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Setting Secondary and tertiary care centres across seven NHS England sites. Participants 222 participants aged 18 to 60 years with symptomatic FAI confirmed clinically and with imaging (radiography or magnetic resonance imaging) were randomised (1:1) to receive arthroscopic hip surgery (n=112) or a programme of physiotherapy and activity modification (n=110). Exclusion criteria included previous surgery, completion of a physiotherapy programme targeting FAI within the preceding 12 months, established osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence grade ≥2), and hip dysplasia (centre-edge angle <20 degrees). Interventions Participants in the physiotherapy group received a goal based programme tailored to individual patient needs, with emphasis on improving core stability and movement control. A maximum of eight physiotherapy sessions were delivered over five months. Participants in the arthroscopic surgery group received surgery to excise the bone that impinged during hip movements, followed by routine postoperative care. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was the hip outcome score activities of daily living subscale (HOS ADL) at eight months post-randomisation, with a minimum clinically important difference between groups of 9 points. Secondary outcome measures included additional patient reported outcome measures and clinical assessment. Results At eight months post-randomisation, data were available for 100 patients in the arthroscopic hip surgery group (89%) and 88 patients in the physiotherapy programme group (80%). Mean HOS ADL was 78.4 (95% confidence interval 74.4 to 82.3) for patients randomised to arthroscopic hip surgery and 69.2 (65.2 to 73.3) for patients randomised to the physiotherapy programme. After adjusting for baseline HOS ADL, age, sex, and study site, the mean HOS ADL was 10.0 points higher (6.4 to 13.6) in the arthroscopic hip surgery group compared with the physiotherapy programme group (P<0.001)). No serious adverse events were reported in either group. Conclusions Patients with symptomatic FAI referred to secondary or tertiary care achieve superior outcomes with arthroscopic hip surgery than with physiotherapy and activity modification. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01893034 .

Objective To investigate whether placebo controls should be used in the evaluation of surgical interventions.Design Systematic review.Data sources We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register from their inception to November 2013.Study selection Randomised clinical trials comparing any surgical intervention with placebo. Surgery was defined as any procedure that both changes the anatomy and requires a skin incision or use of endoscopic techniques.Data extraction Three reviewers (KW, BJFD, IR) independently identified the relevant trials and extracted data on study details, outcomes, and harms from included studies.Results In 39 out of 53 (74%) trials there was improvement in the placebo arm and in 27 (51%) trials the effect of placebo did not differ from that of surgery. In 26 (49%) trials, surgery was superior to placebo but the magnitude of the effect of the surgical intervention over that of the placebo was generally small. Serious adverse events were reported in the placebo arm in 18 trials (34%) and in the surgical arm in 22 trials (41.5%); in four trials authors did not specify in which arm the events occurred. However, in many studies adverse events were unrelated to the intervention or associated with the severity of the condition. The existing placebo controlled trials investigated only less invasive procedures that did not involve laparotomy, thoracotomy, craniotomy, or extensive tissue dissection.Conclusions Placebo controlled trial is a powerful, feasible way of showing the efficacy of surgical procedures. The risks of adverse effects associated with the placebo are small. In half of the studies, the results provide evidence against continued use of the investigated surgical procedures. Without well designed placebo controlled trials of surgery, ineffective treatment may continue unchallenged.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo find evidence, either corroborating or refuting, for many persisting beliefs regarding the feasibility of carrying out surgical randomised controlled trials with a placebo arm, with emphasis on the challenges related to recruitment, funding, anaesthesia or blinding.DesignSystematic review.Data sources and study selectionThe analysis involved studies published between 1959 and 2014 that were identified during an earlier systematic review of benefits and harms of placebo-controlled surgical trials published in 2014.Results63 trials were included in the review. The main problem reported in many trials was a very slow recruitment rate, mainly due to the difficulty in finding eligible patients. Existing placebo trials were funded equally often from commercial and non-commercial sources. General anaesthesia or sedation was used in 41% of studies. Among the reviewed trials, 81% were double-blinded, and 19% were single-blinded. Across the reviewed trials, 96% (range 50–100%) of randomised patients completed the study. The withdrawal rate during the study was similar in the surgical and in the placebo groups.ConclusionsThis review demonstrated that placebo-controlled surgical trials are feasible, at least for procedures with a lower level of invasiveness, but also that recruitment is difficult. Many of the presumed challenges to undertaking such trials, for example, funding, anaesthesia or blinding of patients and assessors, were not reported as obstacles to completion in any of the reviewed trials.

PurposePatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are designed to assess patients’ perceived health states or health-related quality of life. However, PROMs are susceptible to missing data, which can affect the validity of conclusions from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). This review aims to assess current practice in the handling, analysis and reporting of missing PROMs outcome data in RCTs compared to contemporary methodology and guidance.MethodsThis structured review of the literature includes RCTs with a minimum of 50 participants per arm. Studies using the EQ-5D-3L, EORTC QLQ-C30, SF-12 and SF-36 were included if published in 2013; those using the less commonly implemented HUI, OHS, OKS and PDQ were included if published between 2009 and 2013.ResultsThe review included 237 records (4–76 per relevant PROM). Complete case analysis and single imputation were commonly used in 33 and 15 % of publications, respectively. Multiple imputation was reported for 9 % of the PROMs reviewed. The majority of publications (93 %) failed to describe the assumed missing data mechanism, while low numbers of papers reported methods to minimise missing data (23 %), performed sensitivity analyses (22 %) or discussed the potential influence of missing data on results (16 %).ConclusionsConsiderable discrepancy exists between approved methodology and current practice in handling, analysis and reporting of missing PROMs outcome data in RCTs. Greater awareness is needed for the potential biases introduced by inappropriate handling of missing data, as well as the importance of sensitivity analysis and clear reporting to enable appropriate assessments of treatment effects and conclusions from RCTs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11136-015-1206-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ISRCTN 10464365.