Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31014344›Full record

ArticleTrials2019

Expert panel process to optimise the design of a randomised controlled trial in chronic rhinosinusitis (the MACRO programme).

Helen Blackshaw, Jane Vennik, Carl Philpott, Mike Thomas, Caroline Eyles, James Carpenter, Caroline S Clarke, Steve Morris, Anne Schilder, Valerie Lund and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Helen BlackshawevidENT, Ear Institute, University College London, London, UK. H.blackshaw@ucl.ac.uk.
Jane VennikPrimary Care and Populations Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4602-9805
Carl PhilpottNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Mike ThomasPrimary Care and Populations Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Caroline EylesPrimary Care and Populations Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
James CarpenterLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Caroline S ClarkeResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Steve MorrisDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
Anne SchilderevidENT, Ear Institute, University College London, London, UK.
Valerie LundevidENT, Ear Institute, University College London, London, UK.
Paul LittleJames Paget University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK.
Stephen DurhamFaculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Spiros DenaxasFarr Institute, University College London, London, UK.
Elizabeth WilliamsonFarr Institute, University College London, London, UK.
David BeardSurgical Interventional Trials Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jonathan CookSurgical Interventional Trials Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Steffi Le ConteSurgical Interventional Trials Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Kim AireyevidENT, Ear Institute, University College London, London, UK.
Jim BoardmanFifth Sense, Sanderum House, 38 Oakley Road, Chinnor, Oxfordshire, OX39 4TW, UK.
Claire HopkinsGuy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
University College London · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBFarr Institute · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBImperial College London · GBJames Paget University Hospital · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GB

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-RP-011-045Department of Health RP-PG-0614-20011Medical Research Council MC_UU_12023/21Medical Research Council MR/K006584/1Programme Grants for Applied Research RP-PG-0614-20011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMACRO (Defining best Management for Adults with Chronic RhinOsinusitis) is an NIHR-funded programme of work designed to establish best practice for adults with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The 7-year programme comprises three consecutive workstreams, designed to explore NHS care pathways through analysis of primary and secondary data sources, and to undertake a randomised controlled trial to evaluate a longer-term course of macrolide antibiotics and endoscopic sinus surgery for patients with CRS. A number of outstanding elements still required clarification at the funding stage. This paper reports an expert panel review process designed to agree and finalise the MACRO trial design, ensuring relevance to patients and clinicians whilst maximising trial recruitment and retention.

methodsAn expert panel, consisting of the MACRO Programme Management Group, independent advisors, and patient contributors, was convened to review current evidence and the mixed-method data collected as part of the programme, and reach agreement on MACRO trial design. Specifically, agreement was sought for selection of macrolide antibiotic, use of orally administered steroids, inclusion of CRS phenotypes (with/without nasal polyps), and overall trial design.

resultsA 12-week course of clarithromycin was agreed as the main trial comparator due to its increasing use as a first- and second-line treatment for patients with CRS, and the perceived need to establish its role in CRS management. Orally administered steroids will be used as a rescue medication during the trial, rather than routinely either pre or post trial randomisation, to limit any potential effects on surgical outcomes and better reflect current UK prescribing habits. Both CRS phenotypes will be included in a single trial to ensure that the MACRO trial is both pragmatic and generalisable to primary care. A modified, three-arm trial design was agreed after intense discussions and further exploratory work. Inclusion criteria were amended to ensure that the patients recruited would be considered eligible for the treatment offered in the trial due to having already received appropriate medical therapy as deemed suitable by their ENT surgeon. A proposed 6-week run-in period prior to randomisation was removed due to the new criteria prior to randomisation.

conclusionThe expert panel review process resulted in agreement on key elements and an optimal design for the MACRO trial, considered most likely to be successful in terms of both recruitment potential and ability to establish best management of patients with CRS.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsEndoscopyMacrolidesNasal Surgical ProceduresRhinitisSinusitisChronic DiseaseConsensusHealth Services ResearchHumansPragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicState MedicineTreatment OutcomeUnited KingdomAnti-Bacterial AgentsMacrolidesChronic rhinosinusitisConsensusDecision-makingExpert panelMixed methods

Identifiers

PMID31014344
PMCPMC6480653
OpenAlexW2946232356

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.