1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      CONservative TReatment of Appendicitis in Children: a randomised controlled feasibility Trial (CONTRACT)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To establish the feasibility of a multicentre randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a non-operative treatment pathway compared with appendicectomy in children with uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

          Design

          Feasibility randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study to inform recruiter training to optimise recruitment and the design of a future definitive trial.

          Setting

          Three specialist paediatric surgery centres in the UK.

          Patients

          Children (aged 4–15 years) with a clinical diagnosis of uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

          Interventions

          Appendicectomy or a non-operative treatment pathway (comprising broad-spectrum antibiotics and active observation).

          Main outcome measures

          Primary outcome measure was the proportion of eligible patients recruited. Secondary outcomes evaluated adherence to interventions, data collection during follow-up, safety of treatment pathways and clinical course.

          Results

          Fifty per cent of eligible participants (95% CI 40 to 59) approached about the trial agreed to participate and were randomised. Repeated bespoke recruiter training was associated with an increase in recruitment rate over the course of the trial from 38% to 72%. There was high acceptance of randomisation, good patient and surgeon adherence to trial procedures and satisfactory completion of follow-up. Although more participants had perforated appendicitis than had been anticipated, treatment pathways were found to be safe and adverse event profiles acceptable.

          Conclusion

          Recruitment to a randomised controlled trial examining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a non-operative treatment pathway compared with appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children is feasible.

          Trial registration number

          ISRCTN15830435.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials

          The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement is a guideline designed to improve the transparency and quality of the reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In this article we present an extension to that statement for randomised pilot and feasibility trials conducted in advance of a future definitive RCT. The checklist applies to any randomised study in which a future definitive RCT, or part of it, is conducted on a smaller scale, regardless of its design (eg, cluster, factorial, crossover) or the terms used by authors to describe the study (eg, pilot, feasibility, trial, study). The extension does not directly apply to internal pilot studies built into the design of a main trial, non-randomised pilot and feasibility studies, or phase II studies, but these studies all have some similarities to randomised pilot and feasibility studies and so many of the principles might also apply. The development of the extension was motivated by the growing number of studies described as feasibility or pilot studies and by research that has identified weaknesses in their reporting and conduct. We followed recommended good practice to develop the extension, including carrying out a Delphi survey, holding a consensus meeting and research team meetings, and piloting the checklist. The aims and objectives of pilot and feasibility randomised studies differ from those of other randomised trials. Consequently, although much of the information to be reported in these trials is similar to those in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing effectiveness and efficacy, there are some key differences in the type of information and in the appropriate interpretation of standard CONSORT reporting items. We have retained some of the original CONSORT statement items, but most have been adapted, some removed, and new items added. The new items cover how participants were identified and consent obtained; if applicable, the prespecified criteria used to judge whether or how to proceed with a future definitive RCT; if relevant, other important unintended consequences; implications for progression from pilot to future definitive RCT, including any proposed amendments; and ethical approval or approval by a research review committee confirmed with a reference number. This article includes the 26 item checklist, a separate checklist for the abstract, a template for a CONSORT flowchart for these studies, and an explanation of the changes made and supporting examples. We believe that routine use of this proposed extension to the CONSORT statement will result in improvements in the reporting of pilot trials. Editor’s note: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the BMJ and Pilot and Feasibility Studies journal websites.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A practical score for the early diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

            We conducted a retrospective study of 305 patients hospitalized with abdominal pain suggestive of acute appendicitis. Signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings were analyzed for specificity, sensitivity, predictive value, and joint probability. The total joint probability, the sum of a true-positive and a true-negative result, was chosen as a diagnostic weight indicative of the accuracy of the test. Eight predictive factors were found to be useful in making the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Their importance, according to their diagnostic weight, was determined as follows: localized tenderness in the right lower quadrant, leukocytosis, migration of pain, shift to the left, temperature elevation, nausea-vomiting, anorexia-acetone, and direct rebound pain. Based on this weight, we devised a practical diagnostic score that may help in interpreting the confusing picture of acute appendicitis.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Nonoperative treatment with antibiotics versus surgery for acute nonperforated appendicitis in children: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

              The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of nonoperative treatment of acute nonperforated appendicitis with antibiotics in children.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Arch Dis Child
                Arch Dis Child
                archdischild
                adc
                Archives of Disease in Childhood
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                0003-9888
                1468-2044
                August 2021
                13 January 2021
                : 106
                : 8
                : 764-773
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentUniversity Surgery Unit, Faculty of Medicine , University of Southampton , Southampton, UK
                [2 ] departmentDepartment of Paediatric Surgery and Urology , Southampton Children's Hospital , Southampton, UK
                [3 ] UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health , London, UK
                [4 ] departmentDepartment of Public Health, Policy and Systems, Institute of Population Health , University of Liverpool , Liverpool, UK
                [5 ] departmentPrimary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine , University of Southampton , Southampton, UK
                [6 ] Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust , London, UK
                [7 ] departmentSouthampton Health Technology Assessment Centre, Faculty of Medicine , University of Southampton , Southampton, UK
                [8 ] departmentCentre for Academic Child Health, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences , University of Bristol , Bristol, UK
                [9 ] departmentNational Institute of Health Research (NIHR), Research Design Service South Central , University of Southampton , Southampton, UK
                [10 ] departmentDepartment of Paediatric Surgery , Alder Hey Children’s NHS foundation Trust , Liverpool, UK
                [11 ] departmentDepartment of Paediatric Surgery , St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , London, UK
                [12 ] departmentSouthampton Clinical Trials Unit , University of Southampton , Southampton, UK
                [13 ] Patient and Public Involvement Representative , Southampton, UK
                [14 ] departmentCentre for Surgical Research and NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School , University of Bristol , Bristol, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Nigel J Hall, University Surgery Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; n.j.hall@ 123456soton.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8570-9374
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0892-9204
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5070-4653
                Article
                archdischild-2020-320746
                10.1136/archdischild-2020-320746
                8311091
                33441315
                56dfc75d-de40-413b-ad95-f37d6e5c720a
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 18 September 2020
                : 18 November 2020
                : 08 December 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000664, Health Technology Assessment Programme;
                Award ID: 14/192/90
                Categories
                Original Research
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                therapeutics,qualitative research,gastroenterology,health services research
                Medicine
                therapeutics, qualitative research, gastroenterology, health services research

                Comments

                Comment on this article